CIHM 
Microfiche 
Series 
(Monographs) 


ICMH 

Collection  de 
microfiches 
(monographles) 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microroproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microroproductions  historiquas 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes  /  Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  Isest  original 
copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this  copy  which 
may  be  bibllographically  unique,  which  may  alter  any  of 
the  images  in  the  reproduction,  or  which  may 
significantly  change  the  usual  method  of  filming  are 
checked  below. 


D 
D 
D 


D 
D 
D 
D 
D 


D 


D 


Coloured  covers  / 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged  / 
Couverture  endommagte 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Couverture  restaur^  et/ou  pellicutde 

Cover  title  missing  /  Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps  /  Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)  / 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrattons  / 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material  / 
Relid  avec  d'autres  documents 

Only  edition  available  / 
Seule  ^ditton  disponible 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion  along 
interior  margin  /  La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de 
I'ombre  ou  de  la  distorsion  le  long  de  la  marge 
int^rieure. 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restorations  may  appear 
within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these  have  been 
omitted  from  filming  /  II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages 
blanches  ajout^es  lors  d'une  restauration 
apparaissent  dans  le  texte,  mais,  lorsque  cela  ^tait 
possible,  ces  pages  n'ont  pas  6\6  film^es. 

Additional  comments  / 
Commentaires  suppi^mentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire  qu'il  lui  a 
M  possft>le  de  se  procurer.  Les  details  de  cet  exem- 
plaire qui  sont  peut-Atre  unk^ues  du  point  de  vue  bibli- 
ographkiue,  qui  peuvent  modifier  une  image  reproduite, 
ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une  nriodification  dans  la  metho- 
ds normale  de  filmage  sont  indkqute  ci-dessous. 

I     I  Colouied  pages/ Pages  de  couleur 

I     I  Pages  damaged/ Pages  endommagdes 

□  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated  / 
Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pellicul^s 

Q  Pages  discotoured,  stained  or  foxed  / 
Pages  d^cotortes,  tachet^es  ou  pk)u^s 

I     1  Pages  detached  /  Pages  d^tach^es 

^y\  Showthrough/ Transparence 

□  Quality  of  print  varies  / 
Quaind  In^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material  / 
Conoprend  du  materiel  supplimentaire 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata  slips, 
tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  totalement  ou 
partiellenr)ent  obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une 
pelure,  etc.,  ont  6t6  film^es  k  nouveau  de  fa^on  k 
obtenir  la  nrieilleure  image  possible. 

Opposing  pages  with  varying  colouration  or 
discotourations  are  filmed  twice  to  ensure  the  best 
possible  image  /  Les  pages  s'opposant  ayant  des 
colorations  variables  ou  des  decolorations  sont 
filmtes  deux  fois  afin  d'obtenir  la  meilleure  image 
possible. 


D 
D 


D 


Thit  Hem  It  filmed  at  th«  reduction  ratio  checked  below  / 

Ce  document  est  fllmi  au  taux  de  riduction  indlqui  ci-deatout. 


■ 

10x 

14x 

18x 

22x 

26x 

30x 

1 

J 

1 

12x 

16x 

20x 

24x 

28x 

32x 

Th«  copy  f«m«d  h«r«  Nm  htmn  raproducad  thanks 
to  tha  sanaroaity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


L'axomplaira  film*  fyt  raproduii  grica  *  la 
g«n«roMti  da: 

Bibliothiq^a  nationala  du  Canada 


Tha  imago*  opp-^'infl  ^ara  aro  tha  bo«t  quality 
poMibIa  conaidaring  tha  condition  and  lagibillty 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  eonuact  apociflcationa. 

Original  copia*  in  printad  papar  covara  ara  fllmad 
baginning  wwith  tha  front  covar  and  andina  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illu.traiad  impraa- 
■ion.  or  tha  bach  covar  whan  appropnata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tho 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  "«»•«'•«?? J"*'''?*' 
•ten.  and  andino  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  pnntad 
or  illuatratad  imprassion. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  »"ic'oficho 
*haU  conwin  tha  symbol  — » •'"••'""«  "SX..; 
TINUEO").  or  tha  symbol  ▼  Imaaning    two  i. 
whichavar  appliaa. 

Mapa.  platas.  charts,  ate.  may  ba  fllmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratios.  Thoso  too  larga  to  bo 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  aKposura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  hand  cornar.  laft  to 
rioht  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  framas  as 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrams  lllustrata  tha 
mathod: 


Las  imagaa  suivantat  ont  «tO  raproduitas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin.  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
do  la  nattat*  da  I'aaamplaira  film*,  at  an 
eonformitO  avae  laa  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Laa  axamplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvanura  an 
papiar  ast  imprimOa  sont  filmOs  mn  commandant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
darniOra  paga  qui  compona  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustratJon.  soit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  salon  lo  caa.  Tous  loa  autras  axamplairas 
originaux  sont  filmOa  an  commancant  par  la 
pramiOra  paga  qui  eomporto  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illuswation  at  mn  tarminant  par 
la  darnidra  p««*  qui  cemporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 

Un  daa  symboloa  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
darnidra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha.  salon  la 
eas:  la  symbolo  -» tignif ia  "A  SUIVRi".  la 
aymbolo  ▼  signifio  "FIN". 

Las  cartaa.  planehas.  tablaaux.  ate.  pauwant  *tra 
filmOs  A  daa  taux  da  rdduction  dif fdrants. 
Loraquo  lo  documant  aat  trap  grand  pour  ctra 
raproduit  an  un  saul  clichO.  il  ast  film*  A  panir 
da  I'angla  supOriaur  gaucha.  da  gaucha  A  droita. 
at  da  haut  an  baa.  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'imagas  nOcasaaira.  Las  diagrammaa  suivants 
illustrant  la  mOthodo. 


1  2  3 

456 


MKaocorr  msouition  tbt  chart 

(ANSI  and  ISC  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


imm 

■  28 

|M 

■  U 

|U 

tii 

|3j6 

1^ 

U 

1^ 

12.0 


J    /APPLIED  IM/^GE    li 


inc 


1653  East  Main  Stmt 

Rochesttr.   N*»   York        t4609       USA 

(716)  ♦BJ  -  0300  -  Phone 

(716)  28e-5989-Fa» 


AT  ONEMENT 


OR 


RECONCILIATION   WITH    GOD 


BY 


GEORGE  COULSON  WORKMAN, 

M.A.  (Toronto),  Ph.D.  (Leipsic) 

''"S  r*^'  "^  ?'.'*  "^T"."""'  ^"^'^  ""»  L'*^'"^  »  Victoria  Uni. 
ire«ty,  Cobourg,  wd  latterly  in  W«leyan  TheologieaJ  College,  SrT^ 

Author  »/ 

"Th.  T«t  of  J«,miah."   "Th.  Old  Tmtam.nt  V,nd.cat.d," 

"ThI  SlaVANT  OF  JlROVAH,"  ETC. 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming    H.    Revell    Company 

London        and         Edinburgh 


Copyright,  igii,  by 
FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  123  N.  Wabash  Ave. 
Toronto:  25  Richmond  St.,  W. 
London :  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:  100  Princes  Street 


1997 


TO 

PROFESSOR  JOHN  WILSON,  M.A..  LL.D. 

For  more  than  forty  years  in  his  lifetime 

An  eminent  Teacher  of  Greek  and  Latin  in  Victoria  University 

(Canada) 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DEDICATED 

AS  A   TOKEN  OF 

ADMIRATION  AND  VENERATION 


PREFACE 

THIS  is  an  inductive  study  of  divine  Recon- 
ciliation, based  upon  a  critical  interpretation 
of  all  the  Biblical  passages  bearing  on  the 
question.  The  plan,  as  well  as  the  analysis,  is  en- 
tirely new;  and  the  met"  od  of  treatment  seems  the 
only  one  by  which  the  subject  can  be  properly 
elucidated. 

The  title  indicates  the  true  nature,  as  well  as  the 
practical  character,  of  the  work.  It  is  not  Atone- 
ment, because  that  is  an  indefinite  term;  it  is  not 
the  Atonement,  because  that  is  an  ambiguous  ex- 
pression; nor  is  it  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
because  that  is  a  theological  phrase;  but  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  Reconciliation  with  God,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Scriptures. 

Long  years  ago  I  saw  that  the  prepositions  used 
in  the  Bible  of  the  work  of  Christ,  whether  those 
referring  to  his  death  or  those  referring  to  his 
suffering,  did  not  suggest  the  idea  of  substitution; 
but  that,  in  every  case,  what  Jesus  is  said  to  have 
done  and  suffered  for  us  is  said  to  have  been  done 
and  suffered  in  our  behalf  and  for  our  sake.  Had 
that  fact  been  recognized  by  the  early  theologians, 
the  substitutionary  theory  of  Atonement  would 


i!! 

f  ■: 


4  PREFACE 

never  have  been  constructed,  because  the  writers  of 
Scripture  knew,  as  well  as  we,  that  nothing  moral 
could  be  either  substituted  or  transferred. 

Many  years  since,  too,  I  observed  that  theolo- 
gians had  given  a  pagan  meaning  to  certain  New 
Testament  terms  by  going  to  heathen  rather  than 
Hebrew  authorities,  and  I  have  been  delighted  to 
find  that  other  Biblical  students  have  noticed  ♦le 
same  thing.    Speaking  recently  in  his  correspond- 
ence column  of  the  British  V/cekly  with  respect  to 
the  term  propitiation,  for  instance.  Professor  David 
Smith,  D.D.,  of  the  Presbyterian  college,  London- 
derry, declared  that,  as  it  is  commonly  understood 
the  word  conveys  "  a  heathen  idea."    Throughout 
these  pages  I  have  shown  how  a  heathen  content 
has  been  given  to  several  other  terms. 

The  writers  of  *he  New  Testament  were  san** 
men;  and,  though  some  of  their  ways  of  speaking 
were  somewhat  similar  to  those  of  their  neighbours, 
their  habits  of  thought  were  very  different.    Mudi 
of  the  language  used  by  them,  moreover,  was  both 
symbolic  and  figurative.     Unscientific  theologians 
have  perverted  what  they  taught  respecting  Recon- 
ciliation by  taking  their  figurative  language  literally 
and  by  misinterpreting  their  symbolic   forms  of 
speech.    I  have  tried  to  rescue  their  teaching  from 
misrepresentation    by   explaining   Scripturally  the 
symbols  and  figures  which  they  employ. 

The  literature  on  the  subject  is  very  extensive 


PREFACE  5 

and  I  have  been  reading  and  studying  it  all  my 
life;  but,  as  I  was  solely  concerned  with  expounding 
the  Scriptures,  I  have  made  almost  no  use  what- 
ever of  it.  Indeed,  with  the  exception  of  an  occa- 
sional sentence  employed  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
tration, I  have  confined  myself  exclusively  to  my 
critical  apparatus,  having  only  in  a  general  way 
referred  to  any  technical  treatise,  ancient  or  moderi, 
or  quoted  from  any  purely  theological  writer,  living 
or  dead. 

In  each  chapter,  I  have  sought  merely  to  remove 
unscriptural  ideas  from  the  doctrine  and  to  coriect 
prevalent  misconceptions  concerning  ^'t ;  so  that  the 
work  throughout,  though  critical,  is  uncontroversial. 
In  short,  it  is  both  corrective  and  constructive  on  the 
basis  of  historical  exegesis.  Everything  pertaining 
to  the  question  has  been  deduced  from  the  Scrip- 
tures and,  so  far  as  space  permitted,  demonstrated 
by  them. 

This  is  a  book,  therefore,  for  laymen  as  well  as 
ministers.  It  is  designed  for  all  who  wish  to 
understand  the  richest  practical  subject  in  ihe 
Bible.  I  have  tried  to  reduce  the  work  to  the 
smallest  possible  size,  consistently  with  clearness 
and  thoroughness.  A  few  thoughts  have  been  sub- 
stantially repeated  because  of  their  great  impor- 
tance, and  a  few  texts  have  been  requoted  because 
they  have  a  particular  significance  in  regard  to  dif- 
ferent aspects  of  the  doctrine. 


! 


^  PREFACE 

It  is  well  known  to  scholars  that  the  word  Christ 
IS  a  title,  not  a  proper  name,  and  that  in  the  gospels 
Jesus  IS  described  as  the  Messiah,  or  the  Christ 
But,  since  I  regard  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  spirit^ 
ual  Christ  of  God  and  the  anointed  Saviour  of  men 
and  since  "Jesus  Christ "  and  " Christ "  are  freely 
interchanged  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  I  have  used 
Jesus  and  Christ  interchangeably  throughout  this 
discussion. 

I  have  been  assured  that  people  of  all  classes  will 
be  relieved  to  know  that  the  work  of  Christ  was 
necessary,  not  to  appease  the  divine  anger,  nor  to 
vindicate  the  divine  honour,  nor  to  satisfy  the  divine 
justice,  but  to  bring  men,  through  union  witl.  him, 
into  a  right  relation  with  their  Maker.  For,  while 
Reconciliation  has  both  a  Godward  and  a  manward 
side,  it  is  practically  operative  on  men.  In  the 
mediatorial  mission  of  Jesus  the  righteousness  of 
God  finds  its  suprem.e  manifestation. 

The  volume  is  now  given  to  the  world  as  a 
modest  contribution  to  constructive,  or  rather  re- 
constructive, theology,  and  with  the  earnest  hope 
that  it  may  help,  not  only  to  relieve,  but  also  to 
mstruct,  and  may  tend  to  establish  faith,  as  well 
as  dispel  doubt. 

G.  C.  W. 

Toronto,  June,  191 1. 


ill 
iii 


w- 


i: 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

I. 

Atonement  in  Itself  , 

II. 

Atonement  in  God 

III. 

Atonement  in  Christ 

IV. 

Atonement  in  Man 

V. 

Atonement  in  Sacrifice 

VI. 

Atonement  in  Death 

VII. 

Atonement  in  Suffering 

VIII. 

Atonement  in  Service 

IX. 

Atonement  in  Theory 

PAca 

9 

30 

55 
81 

103 

«33 
163 

193 

316 


I 


M 


AT  ONEMENT 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 

A  LL  vital  Christian  doctrines  have  their  roots  in 
/A  *^^  ^^^  Testament.  That  is  owing  to  the 
genetic  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
New  and  the  organic  connection  between  them. 
Hence  an  inductive  treatment  of  any  doctrine  re- 
quires a  careful  study  of  the  germs  contained  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures.  But,  at  the  outset,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  atonement  must  be  explained. 

The  English  word  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  Old  Testament;  but,  though  it  occurs  once  in 
the  Authorized  New  Testament,  it  does  not  occur 
at  all  in  the  Revised.  Those  who  made  the  Author- 
ized Version  translated  the  last  noun  in  Romans  5  : 
II  "the  atonement,"  which  is  a  correct  translation, 
if  the  noun  be  understood  in  its  original  sense; 
but,  since  the  term  is  an  ambiguous  one,  the  makers 
of  the  New  Revision  removed  the  ambiguity  by 
translating  it  "  the  reconciliation." 

The  reconciliation  meant  is  that  described  in  the 

9 


lO 


AT  ONEMENT 


II' 

i 


preceding  verse,  where  the  writer  speaks  of  persons 
"being  reconciled "  to  God  through  the  death  of 
his  Son.  So,  according  to  New  Testament  teach- 
ing, atonement  to  God  through  Christ  is  reconcilia- 
tion to  God  through  Christ.  Had  the  rendering  of 
the  Revisers  been  adopted  from  the  beginning,  the 
world  would  have  become  accustomed  to  their  word; 
and,  instead  of  speaking  of  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, we  should  have  spoken  of  the  doctrine  of 
reconciliation.* 

It  is  a  well-known  fact,  however,  that  atonement 
signifies  reconciliation  or  at-one-ment.  The  latter 
is  an  etymological  definition,  and  one  that  gives 
an  accurate  signification.  The  term  is  composed 
of  the  two  words,  at  and  one,  and  the  termination 
ment.  The  verb  arose  from  the  Middle  English 
form  of  such  phrases  as  "  to  be  at  one,"  meaning 
to  agree  or  be  reconciled,  and  "  to  set  at  one,"  mean- 
ing to  make  to  agree  or  cause  to  be  reconciled;  and 
the  noun  was  originally  used  to  express  the  recon- 
ciliation of  two  estranged  parties,  especially  the  set- 
ting at  one  of  God  and  man,  who  were  previously 
at  twain. 

T^      -^ot  of  the  word  for  atonement  in  Hebrew 

mean,  .o  cover,  or  to  cover  over;  and,  in  the  ritual 

of  atonement,  the  idea  expressed  is  that  of  covering 

sin  so  that  it  is  figuratively  hidden  or  removed  from 

'The  Greek  is  ri/v  KaraWayiiv,  an-l  signifies  a  change  from 
enmity  to  friendship. 


HI  I 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF  n 

the  eyes  of  the  divine  Judge,  and  the  worshipper 
is  figuratively  covered  or  protected  from  the  effect 
of  the  divine  displeasure.  When  used  of  God,  the 
Hebrew  verb  is  always  figurative  in  sense,  because 
he  does  not  really  cover  anything;  but,  when  used 
of  man,  it  has  a  literal  signification. 

A  good  example  of  the  literal  use  occurs  in  Gene- 
sis 32 :  20,  where  the  English  version  makes  Jacob 
say  that  he  "  will  appease  "  Esau  with  a  present,  but 
where  a  literal  translation  would  read,  **  I  will  cover 
his  face  with  the  present  that  goes  before  me."  The 
covering  of  the  face  there  is  the  offering  of  some- 
thing to  come  before  the  face  of  the  one  offended 
that  might  remove  an  angry  look  from  it.  By  giv- 
ing him  the  present  Jacob  hoped  to  placate  Esau, 
or  secure  his  good-will,  and  thus  induce  him  to  con- 
done the  injury  that  had  been  done  to  him. 

The  Hebrew  verb  employed  in  this  passage  is  the 
one  that  is  generally  used  of  the  priest  covering  sin, 
in  the  sense  of  hiding  it  from  God  by  means  of  a 
sacrifice,  and  is  commonly  rendered  into  English  by 
the  two  words,  "  make  atonement."  But  rightly  to 
understand  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  in  relation 
to  God,  we  must  look  carefully  at  the  way  in  which 
the  prophets  and  psalmists  employ  the  verb  from 
which  the  term  atonement  comes.  Though  many 
might  be  adduced,  a  few  important  passages  will 
be  sufficient  for  the  purpose. 

The  author  of  Psalm  65:3  says  that  God  will 


12 


AT  ONEMENT 


"  purge  away  "  the  transgressions  of  the  people,  and 
the  author  of  Psalm  79:9  entreats  him  to  "purge 
away  "  their  sins.  The  verb  employed  in  each  case 
is  the  one  from  which  the  word  atonement  is  de- 
rived, as  well  as  the  one  which  is  generally  used  to 
express  the  notion  of  atonement;  and  it  might  con- 
sistently be  rendered  "make  atonement,"  for  the 
thought  intended  is  that  of  covering  or  cancelling 
transgressions  so  that  those  committing  them  may 
be  shielded  from  the  effects  of  the  divine  disfavour. 

The  figure  of  covering  in  this  connection  is 
equivalent  to  forgiving,  and  the  verb  in  the  original 
may  be  translated  by  the  word  forgive.  It  is  actu- 
ally so  translated  in  Jeremiah  18:  2^,  where  the 
prophet,  praying  for  the  overthrow  of  his  enemies, 
asks  Jehovah  to  "  forgive  not  their  iniquity,"  mean- 
ing that  he  should  not  cover  or  cancel  their  sin,  as  the 
parallelism  proves;  for  the  next  clause  of  the  verse 
reads,  "  Neither  blot  out  their  sins  from  thy  sight." 

That  which  was  supposed  to  be  covered  or  can- 
celled was  the  gitilt  of  sin.  This  is  apparent  from 
an  expression  in  Psalm  32 :  5,  where  the  author  says 
that,  when  he  resolvod  to  confess  his  transgressions 
to  Jel.ovah,  he  forgave  "  the  iniquity  "  of  his  sin. 
The  word  for  iniquity  has  there,  as  often  elsewhere, 
the  force  of  guilt;  and  the  Hebrew  would  be  better 
rendered,  "  Thou  forgavest  the  guilt  of  my  sin."  * 

»The  word  1^?,  which  signifies  iniquity  or  guilt,  is  here  used 
in  Delitzsch's  Hebrew  New  Testament. 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF  13 

In  harmony  with  the  psalmist's  teaching,  I.  John 
1 : 9  teaches  that,  when  we  confess  our  sins,  God 
not  only  forgives  our  sins,  but  also  cleanses  us  from 
unrighteousness.  The  last  word  signifies  iniquity  or 
guilt,  and  the  clause  means  that  he  cleanses  or  frees 
us  from  guilt.  Such  cleansing  is  equivalent  to  ac- 
quittal. Hence,  accoriing  to  both  Old  and  New 
Testament  doctrine,  it  is  the  guilt  of  sin  that  is  re- 
moved when  Gkxi  forgives  us.  Though  our  sins 
can  never  be  undone,  nor  all  their  consequences  ever 
overcome,  when  we  turn  from  them  to  God,  the 
Scriptures  regard  us  as  purged  from  guilt  and  freed 
from  condemnation. 

Each  one  should  notice  that  it  is  God  who  is  said 
to  purge  or  put  away  transgression,  and  that  he  is 
said  to  do  this  of  his  own  accord,  when  men  con- 
fess to  him.  Freely  and  willingly,  the  Bible  teaches, 
he  forgives  the  guilt  of  sin.  We  may  come  to  him 
with  confidence,  therefore,  because  the  excellence  of 
his  character  is  pledged  to  pardon.  His  faithfulness 
and  righteousness  are  guarantees,  the  apostle  as- 
sures us.  Similarly  the  author  of  Psalm  86: 5  de- 
clares that  the  Lord  Jehovah  is  good,  and  forgiving, 
that  is,  willing  of  himself  to  absolve  from  sin. 

Thus,  to  the  Biblical  writers,  divine  atonement  is 
the  same  as  divine  forgiveness.  It  is  a  spontaneous 
act  of  God,  conditioned  on  a  conscious  act  of  man. 
Hence  what  the  priest  did  in  the  Temple  when  aton- 
ing for  the  sins  of  the  people  was  a  symbolic  act, 


if 


iii 


% 


n'. 


if 


m 


H 


AT  ONEMENT 


and  was  known  to  be  a  symbolic  act  by  all  intelli- 
gent Hebrew  worshippers.  It  was  simply  an  out- 
ward ceremony  With  which  atonement  or  forgive- 
ness was  associated.  It  symbolized  a  reconciled 
relation  between  Jehovah  and  those  who  had  ful- 
filled their  lawful  obligations  to  him. 

The  symbolism  of  the  sacrifices  on  the  great  day 
of  atonement,  though  very  significant,  is  also  very 
simple.  The  sprinkling  upon  the  altar  of  the  blood 
of  a  bullock,  slain  by  the  high  priest  as  a  sin  offer- 
ing for  himself  and  his  household,  symbolized  that 
Jehovah  had  graciously  accepted  their  sacrifice,  and 
forgiven  their  sins.  "  The  life  of  the  flesh  is  in 
the  blood,"  Leviticus  17:11  teaches;  and  the  blood 
was  supposed  to  be  an  atonement,  or  a  covering  of 
sin,  by  the  soul  of  the  worshipper  being  voluntarily 
dedicated  to  God. 

When  the  act  of  atoning  for  the  priesthood  was 
completed,  the  act  of  atoning  for  the  people  was 
commenced.  Two  goats  were  presented  at  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  and,  since  it  was  immaterial  which 
one  was  selected,  lots  were  cast  to  determine  which 
of  them  should  be  slain.  These  animals  were  re- 
garded as  constituting  but  one  offering,  because 
each  had  its  own  part  to  bear  in  the  solemnity.  The 
one  which  was  put  to  death  indicated  that  the  life 
of  those  present  belonged  thenceforth  to  God,  and 
the  one  which  was  sent  away  indicated  that  their 
sins  were  thus  removed  from  all  connection  with 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


IS 


the  community.  The  latter  was  meant  to  teach  them 
that,  as  they  should  not  see  it  any  more,  so  God 
would  not  remember  their  sins  any  more. 

Forgiveness  being  an  attribute  of  the  Deity,  atone- 
ment may  be  described  as  an  objective  provision  in 
the  divine  mind;  what  Jesus  did,  too,  in  the  days  of 
his  flesh  by  his  life  and  teaching  to  reconcile  men 
to  God,  may  be  described  as  an  objective  perform- 
ance by  him  for  us.  In  each  of  these  senses  we 
may  regard  atonement  as  an  objective  thing,  or  a 
thing  existing  apart  from  our  experience  of  it ;  but 
in  neither  sense  is  the  term  regarded  by  any  of  the 
Biblical  writers.  By  each  of  them  it  is  viewed  either 
as  an  act  by  which  God  reconciles  man  to  himself 
or  as  the  result  of  such  an  act. 

Their  way  of  regarding  it  coincides  with  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  English  word.  As  the  suffix 
ment  denotes  action  or  result,  atonement  is  the  act 
of  bringing  into  agreement  those  that  have  been 
estranged,  or  the  state  of  agreement  into  which 
those  that  have  been  estranged  are  brought.  On  its 
manward  side,  therefore,  it  is  always  a  personal  or 
subjective  experience,  though  on  its  Godward  side 
it  is  an  objective  provision,  as  is  stated  above. 

For  hundreds  of  years,  however,  atonement  has 
generally  been  viewed  by  the  Church  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent way.  Through  being  incorrectly  viewed  the 
word  became  a  technical  term  among  religious  peo- 
ple.   By  Christian  writers  it  is  chiefly  used  in  the 


i6 


AT  ONEMENT 


sense  of  something  given  to  God,  or  something  done 
for  him,  of  such  a  character  as  to  win  his  favour  or 
forgiveness,  the  sacrificial  work  of  Christ  being  espe- 
cially and  distinctively  denoted  by  it.  That  use  of 
the  term,  however,  is  not  sanctioned  by  anything  in 
the  Bible.  Though  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  recon- 
ciliation of  God  and  man  may  be  called  an  atone- 
ment, because  it  is  pre-eminently  atoning  in  its  effect, 
there  is  no  authority  in  Scripture  for  so  designating 
it,  much  less  is  there  any  authority  for  saying  that 
sin  was  expiated  by  anything  Jesus  did. 

All  men  admit  that  the  English  word,  like  the 
corresponding  Greek  word,  signifies  at-one-ment, 
though  many  justify  the  traditional  use  of  it  as  a 
technical  term.  But  who  made  it  a  technical  term? 
It  was  not  the  evangelists;  it  was  not  the  apostles; 
it  was  not  the  writers  of  Scripture;  it  was  the  theo- 
logians of  a  later  age.  Unscientific  theologians  are 
responsible  for  the  arbitrary  use  of  the  term,  which 
is  as  misleading  as  it  is  unscriptural.  From  that 
way  of  speaking  and  writing  misconceptions  have 
arisen,  and,  so  long  as  that  way  of  thinking  obtains, 
misconceptions  will  continue  to  arise. 

While,  then,  either  the  love  of  God  or  the  work 
of  Christ  may  be  objectively  considered  an  atone- 
ment, or  a  means  of  atonement,  in  its  Scriptural 
application,  as  in  its  literal  signification,  the  term 
denotes  only  action  or  result.  It  is  the  act  of  be- 
coming reconciled  to  God  or  the  state  of  being  recon- 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


17 


ciled  to  him.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  act  of  getting 
or  the  state  of  being  right  with  God.  According  to 
II.  Corinthians  5 :  18,  19,  God  reconciles  men  to 
himself  through  Christ.  So,  in  the  New  Testament 
sense  of  the  term,  atonement  is  the  act  of  becoming 
or  the  state  of  being  reconciled  to  God  through 
Christ. 

It  may  here  be  added  that,  though  the  Scriptures 
do  not  represent  the  work  of  Christ  as  an  atonement, 
Hebrews  2:17  represents  him  as  making  "  reconcili- 
ation "  for  the  sins  of  his  people.  But  the  lan- 
guage of  that  passage  is  symbolic,  being  the  same  as 
that  used  of  a  Hebrew  priest.  This  will  be  clearly 
shown  in  the  chapter  on  atonement  in  Christ  His 
work  was  primarily  one  of  revelation,  and  ac- 
tically  one  of  reconciliation  and  redemption;  but  the 
Biblical  writers  do  not  speak  of  it  as  having  an  inde- 
pendent existence  by  itself,  much  less  do  they  speak 
of  it  as  exerting  an  objective  influence  on  God. 

Because  they  are  so  frequently  confounded  the 
terms,  atonement  and  redemption,  should  be  diflFer- 
entiated.  The  diflference  between  them  has  been 
stated  in  this  way:  Atonement  is  for  sin;  redemp- 
tion is  from  sin.  But  that  distinction,  though  it 
sounds  Scriptural,  is  incorrect.  It  rests  on  the 
notion  that  atonement  is  an  objective  thing,  and 
ignores  the  fact  that  the  word  translated  "make 
atonement "  is  everywhere  in  Scripture  a  symbolic 
term.     It  ignores  also  another  fact,  namely,  that 


i8 


AT  ONEMENT 


l\i 


!» 


the  sending  away  of  the  scapegoat,  described  in  the 
sixteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  is  only  an  object-les- 
son. The  sins  confessed  over  and  so  laid  upon  the 
scapegoat,  were  simply  supposed  to  be  borne  away, 
and  banished  to  a  place  removed  from  contact  with 
the  people.' 

Atonement  signifies  at-one-ment;  redemption  sig- 
nifies deliverance.  Hence  atonement  suggests  har- 
mony, while  redemption  suggests  recovery.  The 
first  means  getting  our  relation  right;  the  second 
means  having  our  condition  safe.  A  freezing  man  is 
atoned  to  the  sun  when  he  connects  himself  with 
its  direct  rays;  he  is  redeemed  by  the  sun  when  he 
is  restored  to  comfort  by  it.  In  like  manner,  a  per- 
son is  atoned  to  God  when  he  puts  himself  right 
with  God,  but  he  is  redeemed  by  him  when  he  is 
delivered  by  his  power  from  sin. 

Therefore,  atonement  expresses  a  relationship, 
whereas  redemption  ex'-resses  a  state.  The  one  is 
a  personal  relation,  the  other  is  a  personal  condition. 
The  former  implies  a  surrender  of  self  to  the  will 
of  God;  the  latter  implies  a  control  of  self  by  the 
grace  of  God.  Atonement  is  equivalent  to  reconcili- 
ation, and  redemption  is  equivalent  to  salvation. 
Consistently  with  this  explanation,  the  author  of 
Romans  speaks  in  chapter  3 :  24  of  redemption  in 
Christ,  but  in  chapter  5 :  11  of  reconciliation  through 
Christ.  So  it  is  wrong  to  use  the  one  term  for 
,  »See  Oehlcr's  "  Old  Testament  Theology,"  Am.  ed.,  p.  313. 


iL'- 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


19 


the  other,  as  if  there  were  no  difTerence  between 
them. 

Regeneration  and  atonement  should  also  be  differ- 
entiated. Viewing  the  former  as  a  divine  quicken- 
ing, it  begins  with  the  prompting  of  the  Spirit  to 
get  right  with  God,  whereas  the  latter  is  the  act  of 
getting  or  the  state  of  being  right  with  him.  Hence, 
the  one  is  related  to  the  other  as  the  means  to  the 
end,  or  the  cause  to  the  effect,  and  the  one  leads  natu- 
rally, or  should  lead  naturally,  to  the  other. 

Both  regeneration  and  atonement  are  very  vital 
doctrines,  anH  oth  are  equally  important  doctrines, 
but  their  true  lation  is  not  generally  understood. 
As  conscious  acts,  the  former  is  preliminary  to  the 
latter;  but,  as  conscious  states,  they  result  in  the 
same  experience,  and  a  reconciled  life  is  a  regener- 
ated life.  Atonement,  like  regeneration,  therefore, 
is  a  doctrine  in  which  all  men  should  be  interested, 
because  it  is  one  with  which  they  are  all  concerned. 

Since  atonement  is  the  setting  at  one  of  those  who 
have  been  estranged,  namely,  God  and  man,  it  is  a 
very  simple,  as  well  as  a  very  practical,  doctrine. 
And  yet  it  has  long  been  regarded  as  a  very  myste- 
rious one.  Many  have  contended  that  it  is  a  mys- 
tery, the  depth  of  which  we  cannot  fathom.  Such 
a  contention  is  based  on  the  belief  that  divine  atone- 
ment is  a  transaction  extending  back  into  the  eter- 
nities between  God  and  Christ,  a  transaction  in  which 
humanity  had  neither  part  nor  lot.     There  is  no 


20 


i  I 


AT  ONEMENT 


foundation  in  Scripture,  however,  for  that  belief. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  both  unscriptural  and  unrea- 
sonable. A  sinner  is  not  saved  by  any  proceeding 
in  which  he  does  not  personally  participate. 

Human  salvation  is  in  accordance  with  an  eternal 
divine  purpose— a  purpose  which  not  only  runs 
through  all  the  ages,  but  also  finds  its  perfect  accom- 
plishment in  the  redemptive  work  of  Christ;  but  the 
redemption  that  is  in  him  is  a  practical,  not  a 
mechanical,  matter.    When  man  complies  with  the 
conditions  of  forgiveness  then,  and  only  then,  is  he 
freed  from  condemnation.     Hence,  though  atone- 
ment is  not  a  mysterious  transaction  between  God 
and  Christ,  it  is  a  personal  transaction  between  man 
and   his   Maker  through   union   with   Christ,   or 
through  union  with  the  spirit  of  life  which  is  in 
him.    But,  being  a  personal  matter,  there  is  no  more 
mystery  about  at-one-ment  between  man  and  God 
than  there  is  between  man  and  man.     Indeed,  if 
God  is  a  loving  Father,  then  at-one-ment  between 
him  and  man  must  be  as  natural  as  that  between  a 
parent  and  a  child. 

The  doctrine  of  atonement  is  also  a  very  compre- 
hensive one.  As  God  is  the  creator  of  all  men,  he 
must  have  an  equal  interest  in  all  men  and  an  equal 
desire  for  their  welfare.  In  other  words,  he  must 
have  the  same  purpose  of  grace  towards  them  all. 
The  Scriptures  are  most  explicit  on  this  point.  The 
excellence  of  his  character  is  pledged  to  pardon,  we 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


21 


have  seen,  and  he  forgives  freely, .'  d  of  his  own  ac- 
cord. 

Had  their  teaching  not  been  ignored  by  theolo- 
gians, and  their  meaning  obscured  by  controversial- 
ists, we  should  never  have  heard  of  such  a  thing  as 
limited  atonement,  nor  would  such  an  notion  as 
particular  redemption  ever  have  been  entertained. 
The  very  thought  of  particularism,  on  the  part  of 
a  perfect  Being,  is  unworthy.  A  perfect  Being  is 
impartial,  and  an  impartial  Being  does  not  confine 
his  favour*  to  a  few.  As  the  Saviour  of  all  who  be- 
lieve, his  readiness  to  save  extends  to  all  who  will 
believe.  Atonement  is  conditional,  but  unlimited. 
The  provision  for  it  is  boundless,  as  boundless  as 
the  love  of  God,  and,  therefore,  as  universal  as  the 
human  race. 

As  there  is  no  such  thing  as  limited  atonement,  so 
there  is  no  such  thing  as  unconditional  atonement. 
All  men  are  reconciled  on  condition  of  being  free 
from  guilt  or  freed  from  condemnation.  The 
boundless  provision  in  God  is  for  all  men,  so  that 
all,  upon  conditions  varying  with  their  state  and 
circumstances,  may  share  in  the  benefit  of  it.  The 
fundamental  condition,  however,  is  the  same  for 
every  one;  for,  as  we  are  told  in  Acts  lo:  34,  "  God 
is  no  respecter  of  persons."  He  treats  men  in  ac- 
cordance with  their  inward  character,  and  regards 
with  equal  favour  all  who  conform  to  his  will,  so  far 
as  they  apprehend  it. 


^2 


AT  ONEMENT 


It  IS,  therefore,  incorrect  to  speak  of  any  uncondi- 
tional benefits  of  atonement.  That  is  to  say,  there 
are  no  unconditional  benefits  of  a  saving  kind. 
There  are  unconditional  benefits  flowing  from  the 
work  of  Christ,  benefits  both  moral  and  social;  but 
the  benefits  of  atonement  are  conditioned,  as  has 
been  explained.  So,  when  it  is  said  that,  by  virtue 
of  the  unconditional  benefits  of  the  atonement,  chil- 
dren are  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  it  is  true  in 
the  sense  that  provision  exists  in  the  divine  charac- 
ter for  receiving  graciously  the  souls  of  all  who  die 
in  the  innocence  of  infancy. 

Moreover,  atonement  is  not  simply  boundless  in 
Its  provision,  but  unceasing  in  its  operation.  There 
IS  nothing  exceptional  or  unnatural  about  it.  Light 
IS  always  active,  and  so  is  divine  love.  God  is 
always  working  on  the  spirits  of  men,  and  some  of 
them  are  yielding  to  him  all  the  time,  so  that  atone- 
ment is  a  constant  process;  and,  as  this  working  will 
continue  so  long  as  man  endures,  it  is  likewise  a  per- 
petual process.  Inasmuch  as  the  operation  of  divine 
love  IS  continuous  and  eternal,  we  may  say  that 
atonement  is  continuous  and  eternal,  too. 

Those,  therefore,  who  speak  of  the  finished  work 
of  Christ,  Ignore  or  overlook  this  fact.  When  Jesus 
uttered  his  expiring  cry,  his  work  of  revelation  and 
redemption  was  accomplished.  He  had  then  finished 
the  work  he  was  given  to  do  in  person  on  the  earth 
But  he  has  since  been  working  by  his  spirit  and 


t^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


23 


through  his  principles,  and  in  this  way  he  will  never 
cease  to  exert  an  influence  on  men ;  so  that  his  work 
will  not  be  finished  as  long  as  a  single  soul  remains 
to  be  reconciled  to  God  through  his  instrumentality. 

Atonement  is  generally  considered  a  central  doc- 
trine in  theology,  and  it  may  be  justly  so  considered. 
The  foregoing  observations  show  us  plainly  that  it 
is  both  a  central  one  in  Scripture  and  a  vital  one  in 
experience.  Getting  right  with  God  is  necessary 
to  being  right  with  self,  and  that  is  necessary  to 
being  right  with  others.  To  get  right,  and  keep 
right  with  him,  is  the  very  essence  of  religion,  and 
the  true  secret  of  life. 

It  should  now  be  clear  to  every  one  tha  itone- 
ment  is  partly  objective  in  the  character  of  God,  and 
partly  subjective  in  the  soul  of  man.  As  a  divine 
provision,  it  is  something  objective ;  but,  as  a  human 
experience  it  is  something  subjective.  So  far  as 
man  is  concerned,  however,  it  is  a  purely  subjective 
experience.  Being  the  work  of  God  in  bringing  man 
into  harmony  with  him,  when  he  is  ready  to  yield 
to  his  will,  atonement  is  the  result  of  a  joint  action; 
and  in  each  case  of  forgivene.ss  the  two  acts,  man's 
submitting  and  God's  remitting  act,  are  combined. 

Hence,  instead  of  viewing  it  as  a  doctrine  diffi- 
cult to  explain,  we  should  view  it  as  one  quite  easy 
of  explanation;  and  instead  of  thinking  that  no 
human  formula  can  adequately  express  it,  we  should 
be  prepared  to  see  that  atonement  is  merely  the 


24 


AT  ONEMENT 


reconciliation  of  God  and  man.  It  implies  a  change 
in  their  personal  relations,  and,  for  that  reason,  it 
IS  the  reconciliation  of  God  with  man,  no  less  than 
that  of  man  with  God,  though  not  exactly  in  the 
same  sense,  as  will  afterwards  be  shown. 

The  two  chief  factors  in  atonement  are  thus  God 
and  man.  Those  are  the  indispensable  factors,  one 
might  say.  But,  owing  to  his  unique  relation  to 
both  God  and  man,  Christ  has  become  a  third. 
These  may  be  called  the  essential  Christian  elements 
of  atonement— God  being  the  author,  Christ  the 
mediator,  and  man  the  receiver.  Besides  these 
three,  however,  as  set  forth  in  Scripture,  there  are 
several  subordinate  elements,  or  several  means  by 
which  atonement  is  effected,  such  as  sacrifice,  death, 
suffermg,  and  service. 

Up  to  the  present,  scholars  have  failed  to  analyze 
the  Bible  with  sufficient  care  to  resolve  the  doctrine 
into  its  elements.  As  a  consequence,  treatises  on 
atonement  have  been  too  much  characterized  by 
repetitions  and  cross-divisions.  Each  of  the  ele- 
ments mentioned  has  its  purpose  and  its  place  in 
Scripture,  and  each  possesses  a  significance  of  its 
own.  All  of  them,  moreover,  have  been  operative  in 
past  ages,  others  of  them  are  still  operative,  and 
will  continue  to  operate— some  in  one  way  and  some 
in  another- -till  the  end  of  time. 

Adopting  tiie  above  analysis,  we  have  seven  Bibli- 
cal aspects  to  consider;  and,  since  philosophy  has 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


25 


played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  interpretation  of  ' 
the  doctrine,  we  have  one  philosophical  aspect  to 
consider,  also.  The  Biblical  aspects  are  all  practical, 
but  the  philosophical  aspect  is  speculative.  Each  as- 
pect calls  for  a  special  discussion,  and  each  will  re- 
quire a  separate  chapter.  In  certain  cases,  too,  a 
pretty  full  treatment  must  be  given,  and  a  fairly  long 
chapter  will  be  required.  An  endeavour  will  be 
made  to  let  the  Scriptures  speak,  so  far  as  possible, 
for  themselves;  and  what  is  said  of  each  phase  of 
the  subject  will  be  rather  suggestive  than  exhaustive. 
Wherever  necessary,  an  element  will  be  traced 
right  through  the  Bible,  in  order  to  evince  its  Scrip- 
tural import;  and  in  every  case  the  peculiar  signifi- 
cance of  an  element  will  be  definitely  described. 
That  is  to  say,  it  will  be  shown  that  atonement  in 
God  is  initiative,  atonement  in  Christ  mediative, 
atonement  in  man  experimentative,  atonement  in 
sacrifice  figurative,  atonement  in  death  consecrative, 
atonement  in  suffering  participative,  atonement  in 
service  ministrative,  atonement  in  theory  specu- 
lative. 

It  is  mainly  owing  to  speculation  that  the  mean- 
ing of  atonement  has  been  so  strangely  miscon- 
ceived. The  great  trouble  has  been  that,  instead 
of  seeking  to  ascertain  what  the  Scriptures  teach, 
men  have  sought  to  explain  the  doctrine  by  con- 
structing theories  about  it.  But  for  theorizing  with 
respect  to  it,  they  would  never  have  been  led  to  sup- 


Vh 


26 


AT  ONEMENT 


pose  that  a  purely  experimental  doctrine  was  an 
unfathomable  mystery. 

Besides  those  which  have  resulted  from  theories 
based  on  an  arbitrary  use  of  atonement  as  a  techni- 
cal term,  misconceptions  have  arisen  from  arraying 
one  divine  attribute  against  another,  as  in  suggesting 
that  God's  justice  had  to  be  satisfied  in  order  that 
his  mercy  or  love  might  operate.  It  has  often  been 
stated,  for  instance,  tliat  divine  justice  demands 
the  condemnation  of  the  sinner,  while  divine  mercy 
calls  for  his  deliverance,  as  if  justice  and  mercy  in 
God  were  opposed  to  each  other.  All  essential 
attributes  meet  together  in  him,  and  he  acts,  not 
according  to  one  of  them  at  one  time,  and  another  of 
them  at  another  time,  but  in  conformity  with  all 
of  them  at  all  times. 

Another  class  of  misconceptions  has  arisen  from 
supposing  that  God  suffered  in  the  work  of  atone- 
ment, that  is,  with  Jesus  on  the  Cross.  But  that 
supposition  is  erroneous.  An  infinite  Being  cannot 
suffer,  because  suffering  implies  limitation.  God 
sympathizes  as  only  a  divine  Being  can  sympathize, 
but  he  does  not  suffer.  Such  a  notion  is  inconceiv- 
able to  most  thoughtful  writers,  and  to  the  present 
writer  it  is  unthinkable.  The  Scriptures  tell  us  that 
he  sympathizes  with  us  in  our  troubles  and  afflictions, 
and  that  he  compassionates  us  when  we  turn  from 
sin  to  righteousness;  but  more  than  that  they  do  not 
teacli,  nor  warrant  us  in  teaching. 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


27 


Then  misconceptions  have  arisen  from  a  misun- 
derstanding of  the  language  employed  by  the  Bibli- 
cal writers.  Many  of  their  terms  have  not  the  force 
in  Scripture  which  they  have  long  been  thought  to 
have.  A  heathen  content  has  been  given,  and  is  still 
being  given,  to  several  of  them.  Such  words  as 
"  sacrifice,"  "  propitiation,"  "  ransom,"  and  "  re- 
demption," are  figurative  terms  when  used  in  the 
Bible  with  respect  to  God.  Their  figurative  charac- 
ter will  appear  when  we  come  to  deal  with  the  pass- 
ages in  which  they  occur. 

The  numerous  misconceptions  render  a  new 
investigation  necessary,  one  might  almost  say, 
imperative;  for  the  subject  cannot  be  clarified  by 
theorizing  over  it.  No  theory— sacrificial,  judicial, 
or  ethical — can  ever  free  from  obscurity  that  which 
is  solely  a  matter  of  experience.  The  only  proper 
method  is  the  one  ihat  has  been  suggested,  namely, 
to  consider  each  element  in  Scripture  by  itself,  and 
then  show  both  its  particular  bearing  on  the  doc- 
trine and  its  practical  relation  to  human  life. 

On  the  authority  of  Jesus,  God  is  our  Father; 
so  that  we  should  think  and  speak  of  him,  in  terms 
of  fatherhood,  for  all  words  used  in  reference  to 
forgiveness  have  a  paternal  significance.  Hence,  in 
our  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  when 
speaking  of  his  dealings  with  us,  paternal  thoughts 
should  occupy  our  minds;  and,  when  speaking  of  our 
relations  with  him,  filial  ideas  should  be  substituted 


li 


28 


AT  ONEMENT 


for  forensic  ideas  and  filial  language  should  take  the 
place  of  legal  phraseology. 

In  order  to  prepare  the  reader  fully  for  what  fol- 
lows, the  character  of  another  class  of  words 

anger,  wrath,  displeasure— should  be  briefly  de- 
scribed. These  each  express  a  violent  feeling,  or 
a  state  of  mental  agitation;  and,  as  such  a  feeling 
cannot  exist  in  the  Divine  Being,  it  can  be  ascribed 
to  him  only  in  a  figurative  way.  To  speak  with 
Wesley  in  his  comment  on  Romans  5:9,"  Wrath  in 
man,  and  so  love  in  man,  is  a  human  passion.  But 
wrath  in  God  is  not  a  human  passion;  nor  is  love, 
as  it  is  in  God.  Therefore  the  inspired  writers 
ascribe  both  the  one  and  the  other  to  God  only  in 
an  analogical  sense." 

Love  in  God  is  his  Spirit  operating  for  us,  and 
wrath  in  him  is  his  Spirit  operating  against  us.  The 
antagonistic  operation  is  that  which  we  bring  upon 
ourselves  in  the  form  of  a  penalty  of  some  kind. 
"  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all," 
the  author  of  I.  John  i :  5  declares.  He  declares 
also  that  "  God  is  love,"  and,  we  may  add  consist- 
ently, in  him  is  no  displeasure  at  all.  When  we 
walk  in  the  light  as  he  is  in  the  light,  we  are  in  har- 
mony with  him;  but,  when  we  walk  in  moral  dark- 
ness, we  are  out  of  harmony  with  him. 

Hence  his  antagoni.sm  is  something  that  we  inci: 
by  acting  out  of  harmony  with  his  will.    In  other 
words,  it  is  simply  the  judicial  discipline  that  fol- 


ATONEMENT  IN  ITSELF 


39 


lows  an  act  of  transgression,  or  the  natural  penalty 
that  comes  from  the  violation  of  law.  Divine  anger 
is  only  holy  hostility  or  holy  indignation.  The  Bib- 
lical writers  saw  this  fact  as  clearly  as  our  modem 
poets,  one  of  whom.  Dr.  Walter  Smith,  has  sweetly 
and  Scripturally  said. 


"  There  is  no  wrath  to  l    appeased 
In  heaven  above; 
No  wrath  with  bitter  anguish  pleased, 
For  God  is  love." 


Ir. 


II 

ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 

AS  the  author  of  atonement,  God  is  the  first 
^\^  factor  to  be  considered.  He  is  not  simply 
its  primal  element,  but  its  originating  cause  ; 
so  that  fundamentally  he  himself  is  our  atonement. 
It  has  always  existed  in  his  character,  and  he  has 
always  been  exerting  an  atoning  influence  on  man. 
In  the  Scriptures  there  is  no  limit  to  his  readiness 
to  forgive  or  to  his  willingness  to  save. 

All  through  the  Bible  he  is  represented  as  both 
gracious  and  forgiving,  grace  and  goodness  being 
viewed  as  his  essential  attributes.  That  God  is  love 
and  that  redemption  is  the  outcome  of  his  love,  is 
the  dominant  note  of  the  New  Testament;  and  his 
gracious  character  is  as  conspicuously  portrayed  in 
the  Old  Testament  as  in  the  New.  Only  a  few  sig- 
nificant epithets  need  be  mentioned,  though  a  num- 
ber of  others  might  be. 

In  Psalm  86:  5,  we  have  seen,  he  is  described  as 
"  good  and  ready  to  forgive."  In  Nehemiah  9 :  17, 
he  is  described  as  "  ready  to  pardon  ";  in  Numbers 
14:  18,  as  "plenteous  in  mercy,  forgiving  iniquity 
and  transgression";  in  Exodus  34:7,  as  "keeping 

30 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD  31 

mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  trans- 
gression and  sin  ";  in  Exodus  34: 6,  Psalm  86: 15, 
Psalm  103:8,  as  "full  of  compassion  and  gra- 
cious"; in  Nehemiah  9: 17,  Psalm  145:8,  Joel  2: 
13,  Jorah  4:2,  as  "gracious  and  full  of  compas- 
sion." The  ancient  Scriptures  abound  in  similar 
expressions  of  the  divine  goodness  and  graciousness. 
One  passage  more,  because  of  its  comprehensive 
conception  of  the  divine  compassion,  may  be  quoted, 
namely,  Psalm  145 : 9—"  Jehovah  is  good  to  all, 
and  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works." 

All  through  the  Bible,  too,  he  is  represented  as 
taking  the  initiative  in  the  work  of  saving  men.  On 
this  point,  John  3 :  16—"  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
life  "—is  so  explicit  that  no  other  New  Testament 
passage  requires  to  be  quoted,  though  no  less  explicit 
is  I.  John  4 : 9—"  Herein  was  the  love  of  God  mani- 
fested in  us  (in  our  case),  that  God  hath  sent  his 
only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might 
live  through  him." 

There  are  also  several  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment almost  equally  expressive  of  spontaneous 
divine  regard.  Ezekiel  33:  11  represents  Jehovah 
as  saying  with  respect  to  Israel.  "  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  that  the  wicked  turn 
from  his  way  and  live  ";  and  Isaiah  59:  16  says  that, 
when  Jehovah  saw  that  there  was  no  one  to  inter- 


m 


\$' 


32 


AT  ONEMENT 


pose  on  behalf  of  Israel,  "  his  own  arm  brought  sal- 
vation." But  Isaiah  45 :  22  makes  Jehovah  say  with 
reference  to  the  world  at  large,  "Look  (literally, 
turn)  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the 
earth." 

Though  less  is  naturally  said  by  th  prophets 
about  the  love  of  God  for  the  heathen  than  about 
his  love  for  the  Israelites,  chapters  42-49  of  Isaiah 
show  that  the  latter  are  viewed  by  the  prophet  as  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah,  because  they  are  commissioned 
by  him  to  give  his  law,  or  his  religion,'  to  the  nations, 
that  his  "salvation  may  be  unto  the  end  of  the 
earth  "•»  and  the  book  of  Jonah,  especially  :n  chap- 
ters 3:  10;  4:  II,  show-  that  God  was  conceived  by 
the  author  as  being  moved  with  pity  towards  all  who 
abandon  their  evil  way  and  turn  from  it  to  him. 
The  thought  expressed  in  those  verfei=  respecting 
the  impartial  favour  of  God  resembles  closely  that 
expressed  in  Acts  10: 35,  "  In  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accept- 
able to  him."  Each  writer  presents  a  similar  concep- 
tion of  the  universality  of  the  divine  love,  and  the 
comprehensiveness  of  the  divine  purpose. 

Then,  throughout  the  Scriptures,  God  is  repre- 
sented as  forgiving  men  spontaneously  when  they 

'The  word  translated  "judgment"  in  the  English  versions 
of  chapter  42 :  2  means  there  the  religion  of  Jehovah  regarded  in 
its  moral  aspect  as  a  system  of  practical  ordinances. 

«So  the  original  of  chapter  49 : 6  is  correctly  rendered  in  the 
margin  of  the  Revised  Version. 


m 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


35 


confess  to  him  their  sins.  In  this  particular,  also, 
the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  is  so  definite 
that  only  one  New  Testament  passage  requires  to 
be  quoted,  and  that  is  I.  John  i :  9 — "  If  we  confess 
our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us 
our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteous- 
ness." With  the  doctrine  of  this  apostle  agrees  that 
of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  especially  the  author  of 
Isaiah  55 : 7,  who  says,  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his 
way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts;  and  let 
him  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  will  have  mercy 
upon  him;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly 
pardon." 

The  prophet  of  the  Exile  is  most  emphatic  in  re- 
gard to  the  spontaneousncss  of  divine  forgiveness. 
In  chapter  43 :  25,  speaking  for  Jehovah  with  respect 
to  Israel,  he  says,  "  I,  even  I,  am  he  that  blotteth  out 
thy  transgressions  for  mine  own  sake  ";  in  chapter 
44: 22,  speaking  in  the  same  way,  he  says,  "  I  have 
blotted  out,  as  a  thick  cloud,  thy  transgressions,  and, 
as  a  cloud,  thy  sins  " ;  in  chapter  48 : 9,  speaking  still 
in  the  same  way,  he  says,  "  For  my  name's  sake  will 
I  defer  mine  anger,  and  for  my  praise  will  I  refrain 
for  thee,  that  I  cut  thee  not  off."  In  like  manner, 
the  author  of  Psalm  25 :  1 1  entreats  Jehovah  for  his 
"name's  sake"  to  pardon  his  iniquity;  and  the 
author  of  Psalm  79 : 9  entreats  God  to  purge  away 
the  people's  sins  for  his  "  name's  sake." 

In  the  Bible  the  name  of  God  stands  for  God  him- 


IP 


34 


AT  ONEMENT 


U\ 


self,  or  his  character  and  attributes,  as  revealed  and 
manifested.  Ezekiel  speaks  repeatedly  of  Jehovah 
as  having  done  something  for  his  name's  sake,*  that 
is,  for  his  character's  sake;  and  our  Lord  taught  his 
disciples  to  pray  that  the  name  of  God  might  be  hal- 
lowed,' that  is,  that  his  character  might  be  rever- 
enced and  reproduced.  For  God  to  do  anything  for 
his  name's  sake,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  to  do  it 
for  his  own  sake.  So  the  psalmists  mentioned  pray 
that  Jehovah  would,  for  the  sake  of  the  excellence 
of  his  character,  forgive  iniquity  and  sin.  By  the 
Old  no  less  than  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  for- 
giveness was  seen  to  be  an  essential  attribute  of  the 
divine  personality. 

But,  besides  the  passages  that  prove  the  spontane- 
ousness  of  forgiveness  as  a  free  act  of  God,  there 
are  two  that  represent  him  as  making  advances 
towards  reconciliation,  and  there  is  one  that  repre- 
sents him  as  graciously  anticipating  the  act  of  con- 
fession. Isaiah  65 :  i  makes  him  say  respecting  the 
Jews,  as  Romans  10:20  makes  him  say  respecting 
the  Gentiles,  to  give  a  literal  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew,  "  I  was  to  be  consulted  by  those  who  asked 
(me)  not,  I  was  to  be  found  by  those  who  sought 
me  not  "; '  and  Luke  15 :  20  describes  him  by  means 

'Chapter  20:  9,  14,  22,  44,  and  often  alsewhere. 
'  Matthew  6:9;  Luke  11:2. 

3  The  first  verb  in  each  of  these  clauses  is  a  reflexive,  so  that 
the  one  signifies,  "  I  let  myself  be  consulted,"     d  the  other, 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


35 


of  a  parable  as  move  1  with  compassion  for  the  peni- 
tent prodigal,  ar  1  as  going  lonh  to  meet  him  while 
he  was  still  a  lo  g  A^^ay  off.  The  God  of  the  Bible 
seeks  his  children  as  a  faitLiul  shepherd  seeks  his 
sheep. 

Such  is  the  general  tenor  of  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture on  this  important  subject.  God  is  not  merely 
willing  to  be  reconciled,  but  desirous  of  reconcili- 
ation, and  is  doing  all  he  can  by  every  possible  means 
to  reconcile  men  to  him.  For  what  he  is  in  himself, 
not  in  return  for  anything  he  has  received,  he  offers 
freely  to  forgive  their  sins.  The  prophets,  like  the 
apostles,  found  the  attribute  of  forgiveness  in  the 
character  of  God;  for  both  prophets  and  apostles 
teach  that  he  forgives  men  when  they  turn  from 
sin  to  righteousness,  gratuitously,  because  of  his 
compassionating  love. 

As  f.ie  Infinite  and  Eternal  One,  he  must  possess 
the  attribute  of  reconciliation.  Atonement  is  in- 
herent in  humanity,  and  hence  belongs  inherently 
to  Divinity.  If  the  Deity  were  unwilling  to  be 
reconciled,  he  would  not  be  a  benevolent,  much  less 
a  perfect.  Being.  Were  the  Scriptures  silent  with 
respect  to  his  atoning  love,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  postulate  the  existence  of  such  an  attribute;  for 
a  moral  creator  is  under  an  obligation  to  deal  kindly 

"  I  let  myself  be  found."  The  thought  is  that  he  made  over- 
tures which  were  rejected.  He  was  ready  to  hear  and  answer, 
but  the  people  were  unwilling  to  supplicate. 


36 


AT  ONEMENT 


■i: 


1 


with  his  creatures  and  care  for  them  in  every  pos- 
sible way.  But  everywhere  they  represent  him  as 
both  possessing  and  manifesting  it,  by  his  interest 
in  all,  his  mercy  towards  all,  and  his  regard  for  all. 

The  author  of  the  one  hundred  and  thirtieth  Psalm 
makes  the  fact  that  God  forgives  spontaneously,  the 
primary  reason  for  reverencing  him;  for  in  the 
fourth  verse,  after  showing  that  no  one  could  stand 
before  him,  were  Jehovah  to  mark  iniquities,  he  adds 
encouragingly,  "  There  is  forgiveness  with  thee  that 
thou  mayest  be  feared."  A  more  literal  rendering 
of  the  verse  would  read,  "  With  thee  is  the  forgive- 
ness, in  order  that  thou  mayest  be  reverenced"; 
and  the  meaning  is  that  with  Jehovah  is  the  forgive- 
ness that  all  men  need,  to  the  intent  that  he  may  be 
reverenced,  because  they  can  truly  reverence  only 
a  gracious  and  forgiving  God.^ 

Indeed,  the  psalmist  just  mentioned  not  only 
makes  the  fact  that  God  forgives  freely  the  primary 
reason  for  reverencing  him,  but  also  makes  the  fact 
that  he  saves  graciously  the  fundamental  ground 
of  trusting  him.  In  the  closing  verses  of  the  Psalm, 
he  exhorts  the  people  to  look  to  him  with  confident 
expectation  for  both  pardon  and  deliverance.  "  O 
Israel,  hope  in  Jehovah,"  he  says,  "  for  with  Jehovah 

'In  the  mind  of  the  psalmist  forgiveness  involved  the  re- 
moval of  temporal  punishment,  and  he  suggests  that  the  sight 
of  what  Jehovah  would  do  for  Israel  might  influence  others 
to  worship  him. 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


37 


there  is  mercy,  and  with  him  is  plenteous  redemp- 
tion; and  he  shall  redeem  Israel  from  all  his  iniqui- 
ties." 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  nothing 
is  needed  to  enable  God  to  pardon  sin.  That  is  to 
say,  nothing  external  is  required  to  render  him  pro- 
pitious. Nothing  external  has  to  be  given,  nothing 
objective  has  to  be  done,  to  make  him  either  able  or 
willing  to  forgive.  Of  course,  as  has  already  been 
observed,  if  his  willingness  is  to  issue  in  reconcili- 
ation between  him  and  the  sinner,  the  latter  must 
abandon  his  evil  way,  and  turn  from  sin  to  right- 
eousness. Man  must  repent  and  amend  his  conduct, 
in  order  to  get  right  with  God,  but  nothing  further 
is  demanded  of  him.  Nor  is  there  anything  more 
that  he  could  do,  except  to  make  restitution,  as  far 
as  he  can. 

Some  persons,  however,  may  feel  perplexed  o\  "»r 
the  offering  of  external  objects,  concerning  which 
so  much  is  said  in  some  parts  of  the  Old  Testament. 
What  does  that  fact  imply?  it  may  be  asked.  As 
their  significance  is  set  forth  in  a  later  chapter,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  say  much  about  the  matter  here. 
In  the  proper  place  it  will  be  shown  that  formal  sac- 
rifice is  not  a  divine  institution,  and  that  God  has 
not  at  any  time  commanded  it.  Though  material 
offering  are  enjoined  in  some  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, they  are  enjoined  as  parts  of  a  religious  ritual, 
not  in  consequence  of  a  command  from  God.    Sac- 


'H 


If;: 


I!!' 


38 


AT  ONEMENT 


rifice  originated  in  a  human  instinct;  and  ft  ex- 
pressed a  feeling  of  dependence  on  the  part  cf  man 
towards  powers  in  nature  capable,  as  he  believed,  of 
helping  or  harming  him. 

There  was,  doubtless,  a  period  when,  in  common 
with  the  other  nations  of  antiquity,  the  Hebrews 
believed  that  God  desired  oblations,  and  the  bulk  of 
the  people  may  have  thought  that  he  was  pleased 
with  them;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  to 
show  that  the  Biblical  writers  supposed  that  he  had 
ever  commanded  them.  Throughout  the  Bible  the 
chief  stress  is  laid  on  spiritual  sacrifices,  or  offerings 
of  thanksgiving  and  praise.  By  the  great  prophets 
and  psalmists  ritual  offerings  were  not  regarded 
with  approval,  except  when  they  expressed  a  right 
state  of  the  heart;  and  by  some  of  the  latter  it  is 
explicitly  declared  that  God  did  not  desire,  much 
less  require,  them. 

The  author  of  Psalm  40:6,  for  instance,  says 
that,  having  endowed  men  with  a  faculty  of  under- 
standing, God  has  no  delight  in  sacrifice  and  offer- 
ing, and  that  he  has  not  required  burnt  offering  and 
sin  offering,  and  teaches  that  true  service  consists  in 
obedience  to  the  divine  will,  not  in  ceremonial  rites 
of  any  kind;  and  the  author  of  Psalm  51 :  17  says 
that  the  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit  and  a 
contrite  heart,  meaning  that  he  desires  not  the  offer- 
ing of  material  objects,  but  the  devotion  of  the 
heart.    By  all  the  leading  writers  of  Scripture  the 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


39 


disposition  of  the  heart  was  seen  to  be  the  essential 
thing  with  God.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  best  connec- 
tion to  observe  that  the  specific  sin  offering  is  men- 
tioned but  once  in  the  books  of  the  Psalms.  It  oc- 
curs in  the  former  of  the  two  verses  just  para- 
phrased, and  there  it  is  mentioned  only  to  state  that 
such  an  offering  is  not  desired. 

Some  persons,  also,  may  feel  like  asking  how  the 
virord  "  propitiation,"  which  occupies  so  prominent 
a  place  in  theology,  is  to  be  explained.  In  reply  it 
should  be  stated  that  the  term  is  never  used  in  our 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  word  for 
the  lid  of  the  ark,  which  is  rendered  "  mercy-seat  " 
in  our  English  Bibles,^  is  sometimes  translated 
"  propitiatory,'"'  becausethe  ideaof  propitiation  was 
associated  with  the  lid  of  the  ark;  but,  though  the 
name  propitiatory  may  possibly  have  come  from  the 
notion  of  placating  the  Deity  at  the  Kapporeth,  as 
the  covering  of  the  ark  was  called,  it  is  a  purely  sym- 
bolic term,  as  the  rendering  "  mercy-seat  "  implies. 

To  the  Kapporeth,  or  covering  of  the  ark,  was 
specially  attached  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
presence,  so  that  it  was  simply  the  place  where  the 
divine  mercy  was  supposed  to  be  dispensed  through 


'  Exodus  25 :  17 ;  37  : 6,  8,  9 ;  Leviticus  16 : 2;  Numbers  7 :  89. 

'The  name  has  also  been  given  by  theologians,  though  not 
by  translators,  to  those  oflferings  which  were  once  thought  to 
be  grateful  to  the  Deity,  and  capable  of  procuring  his  aid  and 
blessing. 


40 


AT  ONEMENT 


n  i 


the  medium  of  the  high  priest.  It  served  as  an  in- 
strument of  atonement,  or  a  means  of  effecting 
reconciliation,  and  was  so  understood  by  both  priest 
and  people.  It  was  so  understood  by  the  former 
from  a  very  ancient  time,  and  by  the  latter  in  later 
times,  at  least.  It  signified  that  God  was  willing  to 
be  reconciled,  and  symbolized  the  grace  of  pardon 
by  which  he  provided  a  covering,  that  is,  an  atone- 
ment, for  the  people's  sins.  Let  no  one  lose  sight 
of  the  fact  that  to  say  he  forgives  sin  is  the  same 
as  to  say  he  makes  atonement  for  it. 

Throughout  the  Old  Testament  sacrifice  has  only 
a  symbolic  significance,  and  the  offering  of  atone- 
ment is  viewed  merely  as  a  symbol  of  reconciliation 
and  communion  between  man  and  God.  On  the 
great  day  of  atonement  a  special  offering  was  made 
to  cover  symbolically  such  elements  of  sin  as  might 
not  have  been  purged  by  the  ordinary  services.  The 
act  of  laying  the  sins  of  the  people  on  the  head  of 
the  scapegoat  was  also  a  symbolic  act,  as  was  stated 
in  the  previous  chapter.  The  whole  proceeding  was 
an  object-lesson.  The  goat,  laden  symbolically  with 
sins,  and  -snt  hastily  away  by  itself,  was  intended  to 
teach  those  present  that  they  mighi  regard  them- 
selves as  favourably  accepted,  and  their  sins  as 
graciously  forgiven. 

In  the  popular  belief,  a  belief  that  may  have  lin- 
gered till  the  period  of  the  Captivity,  the  favour  of 
Jehovah  could  be  bought  with  gifts,  and  his  anger 


::i 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


41 


averted  by  offerings;  but  the  enlightened  leaders 
in  Israel  taught  that  such  was  not  the  case.  From 
the  time  of  the  Exile,  if  not  much  earlier,  the  repre- 
sentative .cachers  taught  that  God  need  not,  and 
could  not,  be  propitiated.  They  regarded  ritual  offer- 
ings as  only  symbolic  expressions  of  a  certain  state 
of  heart,  and  inveighed  against  sacrifices  as  such, 
when  dealing  with  those  sufficiently  developed  to  do 
without  the  symbol.  So  whatever  the  people  in  gen- 
eral may  have  thought  about  obtaining  divine 
favours  by  means  of  sacrifice,  their  leaders  and 
teachers  knew  that  no  divine  favour  could  be  ob- 
tained in  that  way.  So  far  as  the  record  shows,  they 
all  proclaimed  the  unreasonableness  of  thinking 
otherwise. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  word  propitiation  oc- 
curs three  times — once  in  Romans  3:25,  once  in 
I.  John  2:2,  and  once  also  in  I.  John  4:  10;  but  in 
each  place  it  is  applied  to  Christ  himself,  and  not 
to  his  work.  That  is  to  say,  it  's  used  not  to  teach 
that  God  was  rendered  propitious  by  anything  Jesus 
did,  bot  to  show  that  he  is  propitious  in  himself — so 
propitious,  indeed,  that  he  gave  us  Christ  as  a  proof 
of  his  righteous  and  loving  character.  Since  a  full 
exposition  of  these  passages  is  given  in  the  follow- 
ing chapter,  it  is  sufficient  here  to  observe  that 
neither  writer  states  that  Christ  made  propitiation, 
but  that  he  is  a  propitiation,  which  means,  as  will 
be  shown,  that  he  is  a  symbol  of  propitiation,  or  a 


42 


AT  ONEMENT 


|ll' 


■41    »■ 

I" 


!.  I 


I- 


practical  expression  of  divine  righteousness  and 
love. 

There  is  another  New  Testament  passage  that 
should   now   be  briefly  considered,   because   it   is 
wrongly  translated  in  the  New  Revision.    Speaking 
of  Jesus  in  chapter  2: 17,  the  author  of  Hebrews 
says  that  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  his  brethren, 
that  he  might  become  a  merciful  and  faithful  high 
priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  "  to  make  pro- 
pitiation for  the  sins  of  the  people."    So  the  Revis- 
ers have  rendered  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  but 
the  rendering  is  rather  a  heathen  than  a  Hebrew 
one.    By  heathen  writers  the  verb  in  Greek  is  per- 
petually applied  to  their  deities,  with  the  meaning 
'*  to  make  propitious  "  or  "  to  appease  displeasure," 
but  it  is  not  thus  applied  to  God  by  any  Biblical 
writer. 

The  translation  given  in  the  Revised  version, 
therefore,  is  unscriptural,  whereas  that  given  in  the 
Authorized  version,  "to  make  reconciliation  for 
the  sins  of  the  people,"  is  both  Scriptural  and  cor- 
rect. This  assertion  is  proved  by  Psalms  65 :  3 ; 
/'^•3^:  79 ■9.  where  the  same  verb  occurs  in  the 
Septuagint,  and  where  both  it  and  the  corresponding 
verb  in  Hebrew  are  consistentiv  rendered  in  our 


Luiglish  Bible; 


torgive 


or  "  purge  away."    The 


reader  will  recollect  that  the  Hebrew  verb  employed 
IS  one  from  which  the  tenn  atonement  is  derived, 
and  should  bear  in  mind  that  in  each  Psalm  it  means 


ATONEMENT  IN  G(>D 


43 


to  make  atonement  or  reconciliation  as  truly  as  it 
means  to  pardon  or  forpve. 

The  only  other  place  in  the  New  Testament  where 
the  verb  in  Greek  occurs  is  Luke  i8:  13,  and  there 
the  publican  is  represented  as  saying,  "God,  be 
merciful  to  me,  a  sinner."  To  be  merciful  to  him 
meant  to  be  favourably  disposed  towards  him;  that 
is,  to  be  gracious  to  him  and  forgive  his  sins.*  He 
assumed  that  God  was  willing  to  be  reconciled  and 
ready  to  forgive.  Hence  the  rendering  of  Hebrews 
2:  17  in  the  Authorized  version  is  strictly  in  accord 
with  Old  Testament  usage,  and  that  is  what  should 
guide  us  in  translating  the  passage.'  The  apostle 
does  not  say  that  Christ  propitiated  God,  but  simply 
states  that  he  was  peculiarly  qualified  for  the  priestly 
work  of  making  atonement  for  the  people's  sins. 
His  priestly  work,  like  that  of  the  ordinary  high 
priest,  was  purely  symbolic,  of  course.  It  is  not 
necessan,'  to  say  more  on  this  point  here. 

Some  persons,  again,  may  ask  how  such  terms  as 
"redeem,"  "redemption,"  and  "ransom,"  should 
be  understood  when  they  are  used  of  God.  They 
are  then  used  tropically  or  figuratively,  as  may 

'  The  verb  in  classic  Greek  implies  reconciliation  through  an 
external  oflFering,  but  the  only  offering  God  requires,  as  each  of 
the  evangelists  was  aware,  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  heart. 

-  In  the  study  of  Biblical  terms  we  should  always  be  guided 
by  Hebrew  usage,  for  following  heathen  usage  is  misleading; 
and,  so  long  as  men  follow  heathen  usage  with  respect  to  sac- 
rificial Ifitiguage,  so  long  they  will  be  led  astray. 


44 


AT  ONEMENT 


readily  be  shown.    The  primary  meaning  of  redeem 
is  to  buy  back,  that  is,  to  recover  or  rescue  by  paying 
a  price;  and  the  term  has  both  a  literal  and  a  figu- 
rative signification.  It  is  used  literally  of  men,  when- 
ever a  price  is  actually  paid;  but  it  is  always  used 
figuratively  of  God,  because  we  cannot  give  him 
anything,  nor  does  he  desire  anything,  but  our 
hearts.    For  instance,  in  Exodus  6 : 6  Moses  repre- 
sents Jehovah  as  assuring  the  Israelites  that  he  will 
"redeem"    them,    that    is,    deliver    them    from 
bondage;   in  Isaiah  43 :  i   the  speaker  represents 
Jehovah  as  exhorting  Israel  not  to  fear  because  he 
has  "  re-^eemed  "  him,  that  is,  delivered  him  from 
banishment ;  in  Psalm  25 :  22  the  speaker  beseeclies 
God  to  "  redeem  "  Israel  out  of  his  troubles,  that  is, 
to  deliver  him  from  distresses;  in  Psalm  71 :  23  the 
speaker  praises  God,  because  he  has  "  redeemed  " 
his  soul,  that  is,  delivered  him  from  danger  or 
destruction;  and  in  Psalm  130:8  the  speaker  de- 
clares that  Jehovah  will  redeem  Israel  from  his 
iniquities,  that  is,  from  sin  and  its  consequences. 

The  word  "  redemption,"  likewise,  is  a  figurative 
term  when  used  of  God.  It  is  one  of  the  figures  in 
Scripture  under  which  deliverance  from  sin  is 
expressed.  But,  under  that  figure,  various  kinds  of 
divine  deliverance  are  mentioned,  and  always  with- 
out any  thought  of  a  price  being  paid.  The  author 
of  Psalm  111:9  describes  God  as  having  sent  "  re- 
demption "  to  his  people,  meaning  deliverance  from 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


45 


bondage  or  banishment;  the  author  of  Psalm  130: 7 
exhorts  Israel  to  hope  in  Jehovah,  because  with  him 
is  "  plenteous  redemption,"  meaning  willingness  and 
ability  to  effect  deliverance;  in  chapter  i  :68  Luke 
represents  Zacharias  as  blessing  God  for  having 
wrought  "redemption"  for  his  people,  meaning 
deliverance  from  political  enemies  through  the 
agency  of  his  Messiah;  and  in  Romans  3:24  the 
apostle  describes  God  as  justifying  men  freely  by 
his  grace  through  "  the  redemption  "  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  meaning  the  deliverance  from  spiritual 
enemies  which  comes  from  personal  union  with  him. 
Furthermore,  in  Luke  21:28,  and  often  elsewhere 
in  Scripture,  the  term  is  used  to  denote  simple  deliv- 
erance of  any  kind  and  by  any  appropriate  means. 

The  word  "ransom,"  which  is  a  doublet  of 
redemption,  may  be  either  a  noun  or  a  verb.  As  a 
substantive,  it  is  found  once  in  connection  with 
the  Deity,  and  that  is  in  Isaiah  43 :  3.  There  he  is 
said  to  have  given  Egypt  as  a  "  ransom  "  for  the 
release  of  Israel,  and  the  meaning  is  that  Egypt 
was  a  providential  compensation  to  the  Persian  con- 
querors for  the  emancipation  of  the  Hebrew  exiles. 
As  a  verb,  the  word  occurs  in  connection  with 
Jehovah  twice  in  the  Authorized  and  several  times 
in  the  Revised  version;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to 
name  the  passages,  because  in  each  of  them  "  ran- 
som "  is  used  in  the  sense  of  redeem,  and  the  latter 
might  always  be  substituted  for  it. 


I  i 


■ 


I.* 


If  ; 


If 


ft 


46 


AT  ONEMENT 


The  foregoing  examples  suffice  to  show  the  tropi- 
cal character  of  these  terms.  Nothing  was  supposed 
to  be  given  to  God  in  any  of  those  cases,  but  in  every 
case  he  is  conceived  as  acting  solely  of  his  own  ac- 
cord. When  he  is  said  to  redeem  or  ransom,  it  is 
equivalent  to  saying  tha*  he  rescues  or  delivers, 
whether  it  be  from  bondage  or  banishment,  from 
trouble  or  danger,  or  from  sin  and  its  effects.  God 
redeems  men,  as  he  forgives  them,  on  the  ground 
of  his  compassionating  love.  A  good  illustration  of 
this  fact  from  Scripture  is  found  in  Isaiah  52 : 3, 
where  the  speaker  represents  ehovah  as  saying  to 
the  exiles,  "  Ye  were  sold  for  nought,  and  ye  shall 
be  redeemed  without  money."  As  he  received  noth- 
ing for  letting  them  go  into  captivity,  so  he  expected 
nothing  for  bringing  them  out  of  it,  is  the  thought. 
No  price  was  paid,  or  could  be  paid,  in  either  trans- 
action; and  the  Biblical  writers  were  as  intelligent 
in  this  respect  as  we  are. 

God  is  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  a  Re- 
deemer, not  because  his  deliverance  was  purchased 
by  the  payment  of  anything,  but  because  of  his 
spontaneous  interest  in  men  and  his  inherent  love 
for  them.  Addressing  in  Jehovah's  name  all  who 
would  listen  to  liim,  the  author  of  Isaiah  55 :  i  says, 
"  Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters, 
and  he  that  hath  no  money ;  come  ye,  buy,  and  eat ; 
yea,  come,  buy  wine  and  meat  without  money,  and 
without  price."     It  was  his  knowledge  of  human 


M' 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


47 


want  and  his  symiwthy  with  human  weakness,  the 
prophet  teaches,  that  prompted  G(xl  to  offer  freely 
the  blessings  typified  by  the  language  employed.  On 
condition  of  obedience,  those  who  accept  the  invita- 
tion are  promised  complete  satisfaction  for  all 
spiritual  need,  through  membership  in  his  kingdom 
and  participation  in  its  benefits. 

Moreover,  according  to  I.  Timothy  2 : 4,  God  is 
not  simply  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  but  his  will  is 
that  all  men  should  be  saved  through  a  full  acquaint- 
ance with  saving  truth.  There,  also,  it  is  his  inter- 
est in  men  and  his  sympathy  with  them,  in  one  word, 
his  loving-kindness  towards  them,  that  is  given  as 
the  reason  for  his  gracious  desire.  With  that  teach- 
ing agrees  Titus  2:11,  where  we  are  taught  that 
the  grace  or  loving-kindness  of  God  is  the  sole 
means  of  salvation  to  all  men.  Both  verses 
teach  that  he  v  .t  only  takes  the  initiative  in  our 
redemption,  but  also  makes  the  fullest  provision 
for  it. 

Then  II.  Timothy  i  :g  states  expressly,  to  para- 
phrase the  passage,  that  it  is  God  who  savch  men 
by  his  power,  not  according  to  their  works — tnat  is, 
not  as  a  reward  for  anything  that  they  do — ^but 
according  to  his  own  purjx^se  and  grace,  or  his  own 
gracious  purpose.  And,  again,  with  great  explicit- 
ness,  Titus  3 : 4,  5  declare,  to  translate  freely,  that 
when  the  kindness  of  G<A,  our  Saviour,  and  his 
1  jve  for  man  were  revealed  in  the  jjcrson  of  Christ, 


^ 


48 


AT  ONEMENT 


he  saved  us,  not  as  the  result  of  any  works  of  a 
righteous  nature  that  we  had  done,  but  in  con- 
formity to  his  own  merciful  purpose.*  Here,  also, 
our  salvation  is  definitely  ascribed  to  the  fact  that 
forgiveness  is  a  divine  attribute. 

Thus,  throughout  both  Testaments,  God  is  repre- 
sented as  a  Being  who  forgives  freely  and  saves  gra- 
ciously all  who  put  their  trust  in  him.  The  prophets 
and  psalmists,  as  well  as  the  evangelists  and  apostles, 
teach  that  reconciliation  or  atonementoriginateswith 
him.  The  former,  no  less  than  the  latter,  saw  that 
it  was  an  essential  element  of  his  character.  And 
it  is  not  simply  an  essential  element  of  his  character, 
but  the  primal  attribute  of  his  personality. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  the  plainness  of  the  Scrip- 
tures on  this  point,  theologians  have  long  taught, 
and  are  still  teaching,  that  an  external  influence  was 
necessary  either  to  render  him  propitious,  or  to 
enable  him  to  pardon — some  holding  that  the  work 
of  Christ  is  the  ground  of  forgiveness,  some  holding 
that  his  death  is  the  ground  on  which  sins  are  re- 
mitted, and  some  holding  that  his  unmerited  suffer- 
ing is  the  ground  on  which  unmerited  pardon  is 
bestowed.  In  one  form  or  another  this  view  is 
dominant  to-day,  and  it  has  been  regarded  as  evan- 
gelical throughout  the  Christian  Church  for  many 
centuries. 

'In  each  of  these  passages  repentance  and  faith  are  pre- 
supposed, of  course. 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


49 


But  such  teaching  is  contrary  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  quite  unbiblical  to  make  anything 
othe  than  divine  grace  an  objective  ground  of  for- 
giveness. The  objective  ground  of  forgiveness  is 
the  character  of  God,  and,  were  it  not,  the  outlook 
for  the  sinner  would  be  dark,  indeed.  A  God  of 
love  needs  nothing  to  make  him  loving,  and  the 
Being  who  gave  his  only  begotten  Son  to  the  world 
because  he  loved  the  world,  needs  no  objective 
ground  to  enable  him  to  pardon.  If  he  were  not 
willing  of  himself  to  pardon,  we  could  not  make 
him  willing;  and,  if  forgiveness  were  not  an  attri- 
bute of  his  character,  no  one  could  put  it  there. 
His  love,  however,  is  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  atonement;  and  forgiveness  is  bestowed  on 
man,  not  by  reason  of  anything  done  for  him  by 
another,  but  in  consequence  of  his  repentance 
and  faith. 

When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that  God  does  not  need 
to  be  propitiated  by  an  outward  offering  of  any 
kind,  it  is  meant  that  nothing  external  has  been 
done,  and  that  nothing  external  could  be  done,  to 
make  him  either  able  or  willing  to  forgive.  Since, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  atonement  is  in  his  char- 
acter, nothing  was  ever  performed  that  enabled  him 
either  to  receive  the  soul  of  a  little  child  that  has  not 
sinned  or  to  remit  the  sins  of  a  wicked  man  who 
complies  with  the  conditions  of  forgiveness.  Had 
theologians  sufficiently  considered  that  God  is  a 


if: 


50 


AT  ONEMENT 


m> 


Spirit,  and  consequently  can  receive  nothing  but 
something  spiritual;  that  the  essence  of  his  charac- 
ter is  love,  and  consequently  he  needs  nothing  to 
make  him  loving,  they  would  have  seen  what  the 
prophets  and  apostles  saw,  namely,  that  such  terms 
as  "  ransom/'  "  redeem,"  "  sacrifice,"  "  propiti- 
ation," could  be  used  of  him,  or  in  relation  to  him, 
only  in  a  figurative  sense. 

Though  God  does  not  need  to  be  appeased  by 
means  of  an  external  object,  there  is,  nevertheless,  an 
element  of  propitiation  in  atonement;  for,  when  a 
person  turns  from  sin  to  righteousness,  the  divine 
displeasure  ceases  to  exist,  because  the  bar  t(.>  recon- 
ciliation is  then  removed.  The  teaching  of  Isaiah 
59:  I,  2  is  [jertinent  here.  Addressing  the  Israelites, 
the  prophet  says,  to  give  a  literal  translation,  "  The 
hand  of  Jehovah  is  not  too  short  to  save,  nor  is  his 
ear  too  heavy  to  hear,  but  your  sins  have  become  a 
barrier  between  you  and  your  God,  and  your  iniqui. 
ties  have  hidden  his  face  from  you,  so  that  he  does 
not  hear."  It  was  not  his  unwillingness  to  hear, 
nor  his  inability  t«  help,  but  the  sin  of  the  people, 
that  was  the  hindrance  to  deliverance.  Thus  sin 
was  the  sole  cause  of  separation,  and  it  is  the  sole 
barrier  to  reconciliation. 

God  does  not  hide  his  face,  much  less  withdraw 
his  favour,  from  any  one;  but  sin  separates  man 
from  him  by  interrupting  spiritual  communion.  So 
long  as  separation  continues,  so  long  estrangement 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


51 


remains.  When  a  sinner  repents,  however,  and 
abandons  his  evil-doing,  the  divine  favour  returns. 
Just  as  soon  as  sin  is  put  away,  separation  ceases  and 
communion  is  restored.  Divine  displeasure  or  dis- 
favour, therefore,  being  the  result  of  separation 
from  God,  is  something  that  men  bring  upon  them- 
selves. It  is  the  result  of  a  wrong  relation  or  a 
wrong  attitude. 

Therein  lies  the  explanation  of  Psalm  18:26, 
which  suggests  that  God  meets  man  as  man  meets 
him.  He  shows  himself  pure  to  the  ;  ure  man,  and 
froward  to  the  per\'erse,  because  the  pure  man  has 
a  right  relation  to  him,  and  the  perverse  man  has 
not.  The  attitude  of  the  one  is  sympathetic,  while 
that  of  the  other  is  antipathetic.  The  different  man- 
ner of  meeting  is  owing  to  a  different  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  two  men.  If  the  response  be  antago- 
nistic, as  that  of  a  bad  man  is,  the  cause  of  the 
antagonism  is  in  the  man  himself.  The  manifesta- 
tion both  of  divine  favour  and  of  divine  disfavour  is 
conditioned  on  man's  relation  to  God  and  on  maa's 
attitude  towards  him. 

A  changed  human  attitude,  however,  produces  no 
change  in  the  divine  attitude,  because  that  does  not 
admit  of  change.  Benevolence  is  a  permanent  attri- 
bute of  the  Deity,  as  brightness  is  a  permanent 
attribute  of  the  sun;  and,  as  the  sun  is  always  shed- 
ding light,  so  God  is  always  shedding  love.  God  is 
love,  perfect  love;  and  perfect  love  is  constant.    "  I 


52 


AT  ONEMENT 


I 
ii      ' 


il: 


am  Jehovah,  I  change  not,"  Malachi  3 : 6  makes  the 
Divine  Being  say.  He  is  not  capable  of  changing, 
much  less  susceptible  to  change.  He  is  ever  our 
faithful,  unchangeable  friend. 

Hence  the  divine  attitude  is  always  the  same,  for 
if  he  does  not  change,  his  attitude  cannot.  He  loves 
the  sinner,  but  is  antagonistic  towards  his  sin.  A 
true  father  loves  his  child,  even  when  displeased  at 
Ills  behaviour.  So  the  heavenly  Father,  though  dis- 
pleased at  sin.  both  loves  and  woos  the  sinner  all 
the  time,  and  seeks  in  every  way  he  can  to  lead 
him  to  repent.  The  truth  of  this  assertion  is 
put  beyond  doubt  by  the  statement  in  Romans 
5 : 8  that,  while  we  were  still  sinners,  God  gave 
us  Christ  as  a  proof  of  his  compassionating 
love. 

The  doctrine  of  the  psalmist  is  thit  God  deals 
with  men  according  to  their  character,  and  the  prin- 
ciples or  his  government  are  such  that  he  cannot  deal 
with  them  in  any  other  way.  His  is  a  perfect  admin- 
istration, and  he  is  at  cross-purposes  with  the  wicked 
because  the  wicked  are  at  cross-purposes  with  him. 
His  holiness  is  immutable,  but  its  operation,  like 
that  of  the  sun,  which  softens  wax  and  hardens  day, 
depends  on  the  particular  attitude  of  each  human 
being.  If  the  personal  relation  be  right,  the  effect 
of  the  operation  will  be  agreeable:  but.  if  the  per- 
sonal relation  be  wrong,  the  effect  vvill  be  just  the 
reverse.     In  each  case  the  result  will  correspond  to 


ATONEMENT  IN  GOD 


53 


the  conduct.  God  is  a  benignant  sun  to  those  who 
observe  his  laws,  but  a  consuming  fire  to  those  who 
violate  them. 

No  more  requires  to  be  said  at  present  respecting 
the  freenessof  divine  favour  and  thespontaneousness 
of  divine  forgiveness.  It  has  been  shown  that  pro- 
pitiation is  an  essential  attribute  of  the  Deity.  If  a 
finite  being  possesses  it,  an  infinite  Being  must. 
It  has  been  shown  that  the  Biblical  writers  knew 
that  he  possessed  it,  and  laid  great  stress  upon  that 
fact.  The  idea  that  he  needs  to  be  appeased  is  nei- 
ther Christian  nor  Jewish,  but  pagan  and  heathen. 
It  has  also  been  shown  that  those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture which  were  once  held  to  teach  the  contrary  have 
been  misinterpreted.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible 
to  justify  such  a  view. 

Were  it  not  superfluous,  it  might  be  shown  that, 
if  God  did  need  to  be  appeased  by  an  external  object, 
there  is  nothing  we  could  give  him;  for  the  earth  is 
his  and  its  fulness,  too,  as  the  psalmi.  no  less  than 
the  apostle  has  said.  All  things  come  from  him, 
and  we  can  only  return  to  him  what  he  has  bestowed 
on  us.  We  can  give  him  nothing  but  our  hearts, 
and  in  giving  them  we  do  something  for  ourselves, 
and  not  for  him. 

When  we  walk  into  the  sunshine  we  do  not  give 
the  sun  anjthing,  but  place  ourselves  where  it  can 
give  us  something — light  and  heat,  or  brightness 
and  warmth.    So,  when  we  put  ourselves  right  with 


54 


AT  ONEMENT 


God  by  offering  him  our  hearts,  we  do  not  really  give 
him  anything;  but  simply  place  ourselves  in  such 
a  relation  to  him  that  he  can  give  us  everything — 
light  and  love,  and  power  and  peace,  and  guidance 
and  grace. 


«t 


Ill 

ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


BEING  in  an  eminent  sense  the  Son  of  Man 
and  in  a  pre-eminent  sense  the  Son  of  God, 
Christ  is  uniquely  related  to  both  God  and 
men.  Because  of  his  unique  relation  to  men  on  the 
one  side,  and  to  God  on  the  other,  he  is  the  second 
factor  to  be  considered.  In  order  to  evince  the 
.lature  of  atonement  in  him,  we  must  see  what  he  is 
said  to  have  done,  and  how  he  is  said  to  have  done 
it.  This  necessitates,  first  of  all,  an  examination  of 
what  the  evangelists  record  concerning  him. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  that  nothing  is  specifi- 
cally said  in  the  gospels  respecting  the  doctrine  of 
atonement.  The  reason  therefor  is  fairly  obvious, 
though.  During  the  ministry  of  Jesus  he  was  practi- 
cally engaged  in  reconciling  men  to  God  by  his  life 
and  teaching,  and  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  dis- 
cuss the  doctrine  in  a  formal  way.  Then  his  immedi- 
ate followers  were  mainly  Jews,  who  had  already  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  were  already  reconciled  to 
him.  Through  association  with  Jesus  those  faithful 
to  his  instruction  not  only  imbibed  most  of  his  ideas, 
but  also  caught  much  of  his  spirit.    In  this  way  they 

ss 


56 


AT  ONEMENT 


became  one  with  him  in  a  desire  to  please  God  and 
an  endeavour  to  do  his  will. 

Nor  should  we  look  for  anything  specific  about 
atonement  from  the  evangelists.  The  doctrine  be- 
longs to  theology  rather  than  history,  and  they  were 
historians  rather  than  theologians.  His  mission,  how- 
ever, is  di^scribed  by  them  as  one  of  manifestation. 
In  Matthew  11:27  and  Luke  10:22  he  is  repre- 
sented as  communicating  to  men  the  knowledge  of 
the  Father.  By  each  of  the  Synoptists  he  is  depicted 
as  expressing  the  mind  and  attitude  of  God.  By  the 
Fourth  Evangelist  he  is  described  as  the  only  begot- 
ten of  the  Father,  in  whom  the  eternal  Word  was 
embodied  and  through  whom  the  divine  character 
was  spoVen  forth.  By  all  of  them  he  is  regarded  as 
the  perfect  revelation  of  the  true  religious  life. 
Though  they  do  not  use  the  term  atonement,  they 
represent  Jesus  as  actively  seeking  to  get  men  right 
with  God  by  proclaiming  his  truth  and  declaring  his 
love.  Right  relations  with  God  and  man  form  the 
burden  of  his  teaching. 

No  hint  is  given  in  the  gospels  that  anything  Jesus 
did  had  any  effect  on  God.  On  the  contrary,  his 
mission  is  represented,  not  as  an  expedient  for 
changing  the  mind  and  attitude  of  God,  but  as  a 
means  of  making  his  mind  and  attitude  known.  In 
Matthew  4: 17  he  is  represented  as  saying  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  "  Repent  ye,  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand."    All  that  he  is  there 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


57 


said  to  have  done  was  to  induce  as  many  as  he  could 
to  repent  and  become  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  that  is,  to  change  from  a  wrong  to  a  right 
state  of  mind  and  turn  from  a  bad  to  a  good  course 
of  life.  And,  in  principle,  that  is  all  he  is  anywhere 
said  to  have  done  with  regard  to  getting  men  right 
with  their  Maker.  The  object  of  his  mission,  like 
the  purpose  of  his  coming,  was  to  change  the  atti- 
tude of  men,  not  that  of  God;  and  the  declaration 
that  God  sent  him  into  the  world  because  he  loved 
the  world  should  prevent  us  from  supposing  it  pos- 
sible to  change  his  attitude.  Much  more  should  it 
keep  us  from  thinking  that  any  change  in  him  was 
necessary. 

The  view  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  getting  men  right 
with  their  Maker  may  be  gathered  partly  from  the 
parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  and  partly  from  the 
teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  From  each 
of  these  records  it  appears  that,  in  order  to  do  what 
he  came  to  do,  he  appealed  to  the  highest  and  best 
there  is  in  man  by  presenting  the  highest  and  best 
there  is  in  God.  And  no  other  way  is  so  reasonable 
or  could  be  so  effective. 

In  the  sermon  Jesus  teaches  that  God  has  a  love 
of  benevolence  towards  all  men — a  love  that  is 
shown  to  be  perfect,  or  complete  and  impartial,  by 
his  causing  the  sun  to  shine  on  the  evil  and  the  good, 
and  by  his  sending  the  rain  on  the  just  and  the  un- 
just; and  he  shows  that  we  are  children  of  God  in  a 


S8 


AT  ONEMENT 


# 


» 


¥ 


spiritual  sense  when  we  cherish  the  same  love  one 
towards  another.  Then  he  exhorts  his  disciples  to 
be  perfect,  or  complete  and  impartial,  in  their  love 
as  the  heavenly  Father  is  in  his.  Hence,  according 
to  the  sermon,  to  get  right  with  God  is  so  to  relate 
ourselves  to  him  that  we  may  become  one  with  him 
in  the  spirit  of  benevolence,  and  thus  grow  gradually 
like  him.  because  he  desires  his  children  to  be  like 
himself. 

In  the  parable,  where  the  father  represents  God, 
and  the  prodigal  any  person  that  strays  away  from 
him.  Jesus  teaches  that,  when  a  wanderer  comes  back 
to  &.id,  he  is  not  simply  ready  to  receive  him,  but 
waiting  to  welcome  him  to  his  heart;  for,  as  soon 
as  the  erring  one  resolved  to  return  to  his  father, 
the  latter  went  forth  to  meet  him,  and  on  meeting 
him  greeted  him  with  a  kiss  of  reconciliation.  Thus 
the  heavenly  Father  accepts  the  very  effort  to  find 
him.  and  anticipates  it  with  his  pardoning  grace.  In 
the  parable,  as  in  the  sermon,  therefore,  to  get  right 
with  God  is  to  put  one's  self  in  harmony  with  him, 
and  become  one  with  him  by  personal  devotion  to  his 
will.  Xoching  more  is  necessary,  and  nothing  more 
could  be  done. 

As  Christ  is  colled  a  *'  ransom  "  in  Matthew  20: 
j8  and  Mark  ro :  45  those  verses  should  be  ex- 
plained before  we  pass  from  the  gospels  to  the 
epistles.  The  term  is  there  used  symbolically,  first 
because  it   is  nowhere  used  of  him  hterallv.  nor 


^,^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  59 

could  it  be  so  used  in  reference  to  God.    He  gave 
himself  for  us,  but  he  gave  nothing  to  God  for  us. 
Then,  secondly,  the  tenn  is  there  used  in  a  symbolic 
sense,  because  the  subject  there  discussed  is  self- 
denymg  service.    Our  Lord  did  not  regard  himself 
as  a  literal  ranson,  but  as  a  redemption  or  deliver- 
ance, that  is,  a  means  of  rescuing  men  from  sin;  and 
the  context  sliows  that  he  was  si^eaking  of  something 
done  for  men,  not  of  something  given  to  God.    The 
parallelism  of  the  clauses  helps  us  to  understand  the 
thought.    A  more  expressive  rendering  of  the  origi- 
nal would  read.  "  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life 
a  ministration  in  behalf  of  many  " ;  or,  more  simply. 
The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  served,  but  to 
serve,  and  to  give  his  life  a  service  in  behalf  of 
many."  ^ 

We  have  here  a  Hebrew  construction  of  well- 
known  significance.  It  indicates  that  the  last  clause 
was  framed  to  express  the  same  idea  as  the  one  pre- 
ceding it;  and,  as  the  preceding  one  speaks  of  minis- 
tering, the  word  for  ransom  is  equivalent  to  minis- 
tration or  service.  Then,  since  the  preposition 
tor  IS  ambiguous,  it  is  objectionable.  It  suggests 
the  notion  of  substitution,  but  that  is  not  what  the 
evangelists  intend.  They  refer  to  the  benefits  con- 
ferred on  hunianity  by  the  life  and  teaching  of 

mlSl^ra^ln  Rot::?:  t%""^  '""'^"^^'  °^  '''  ""^  °^ 


6o 


AT  ONEMENT 


Christ,  as  the  subject  of  sdf-denying  service  proves. 
Hence,  the  particle  should  be  translated  "  in  behalf 
of,"  "  for  the  sake  of,"  or  '•  for  the  advantaire 
of." » 

So  the  preposition  used  in  I.  Timothy  2 : 6  should 
be  translated,  and  so  the  context  requires  us  to  trans- 
late the  preposition  here.  There  he  is  said  to  have 
given  himself  a  ransom  or  benefit  in  behalf  of  all, 
and  here  he  is  said  to  have  given  his  life  a  ransom 
or  benefit  in  behalf  of  the  many;  but  the  thought 
expressed  in  each  case  is  substantially  the  same.' 
Jesus  came  to  serve  at  any  cost  whatever  to  himself. 
In  no  other  way  than  by  the  gift  of  himself  could 
mankind  have  been  reached  and  rescued  through  his 
instrumentality.  To  give  hii  life  a  ransom,  there- 
fore, meant  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  Iiimsexf  for  the 
sake  of  rescuing  men  from  sin  through  his  self- 
denying  service  in  their  behalf.    His  life  vas  thus 

•The  preposition  in  Greek  signifies  "  in  the  room  of "  when 
used  literally  of  one  person  taking  the  place  of  another,  as  in 
Matthew  -' :  Zi,  where  we  are  toid  that  .\rchelaus  was  reigning 
over  Judea  "in  the  room  of  his  father  Herod."  But,  in  its 
mural  or  religious  r'!ati<jn.  it  has  the  meaning  given  above,  for 
the  reason  that  in  moral  or  religious  matters  one  cannot  take 
the  place  of  another. 

-In  the  epistie  we  have  i»^f\wTpoi>  irrift  with  a  genitive,  which 
is  equal  to  Xyrpoi-  i.rrl  with  the  genitive  m  the  gospels ;  and,  as 
the  former  should  be  translated  a  ransom  or  service  ' '  in  behalf 
of,"  the  latter  should  be  so  translanted,  too.  It  is  interesting 
to  observe  that  in  each  gospel  the  Vulgate  has  pro,  which  sug- 
gests a  similar  meaning. 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  61 

a  redemption  price,  not  as  an  offering  to  God,  but 
as  a  sacrifice  for  men. 

Thus,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  evange- 
lists, atonement  in  Christ  is  mediative.    That  is  to 
say,  he  mediates  atonement  by  bringing  men  into 
right  relations  with  the  Father.    Though  he  is  not 
reported  to  have  said  anything  specific  concerning 
the  doctrine  itself,  he  is  regarded  by  his  biographers 
as  a  great  peace-maker,  or  a  unique  reconciler,  be- 
tween God  and  men.    By  them  his  whole  mission  of 
manifestation  is  viewed  as  having  exerted  a  recon- 
ciling influence  on  'everent  and  receptive  minds. 
Their  view  of  his  atoning  influence  having  been 
shown,  it  is  now  necessary  to  show  how  far  the 
view  of  the  apostles  agrees  with  it.    Before  this  is 
done,  however,  an  important  point  of  agreement  be- 
tween the  teaching  of  the  evangelists  and  that  of  the 
canonical  prophets  deserves  to  be  mentioned. 

The  teaching  of  the  latter  respecting  the  spiritual 
work  of  the  Messiah  corresponds  quite  closely  to 
that  presented  in  the  gospels  respecting  Jesus.  The 
Christ  foreshadowed  by  them  was  expected,  among 
other  things,  to  be  an  authoritative  teacher  or  coun- 
sellor, who  should  possess  peculiar  mental,  moral, 
and  practical  qualifications  for  his  office.  According 
to  Isaiah  1 1 : 2  he  was  to  be  a  person  specially  en- 
dowed in  each  of  those  respects  with  the  spirit  of 
Jehovah,  and  thus  fitted  to  lead  his  people  into  fel- 
lowship with  him  and  conformity  to  h  .  will.    What 


62 


AT  ONEMENT 


II,; 


this  Coming  One  was  expected  to  do  in  a  religious 
way  for  the  Jews,  Jesus,  as  the  divine  fulfiller  of 
prophecy,  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  his  histori- 
ans to  have  done  for  the  world. 

The  formulation  of  the  doctrine  was  left  to  those 
who  had  more  time  for  reflection  and  more  training 
in  interpretation  than  the  evangelists  had.  The  first 
and  chief  interpreter  of  Christ  was  the  apostle  Paul. 
Compared  with  the  personal  followers  of  Jesus,  he 
had  special  qualifications  for  understanding  him. 
Then,  besides  his  special  qualifications,  both  natural 
and  acquired,  he  had  the  advantage  of  perspective. 
The  personal  followers  of  Jesus  were  too  near  to 
him  to  see  things  in  their  true  proportions.  Paul 
seems  also  to  have  looked  more  deeply  into  the 
nature  of  his  mission  than  his  immediate  disciples 
did,  and  to  have  seen  more  clearly  than  they  saw 
the  significance  of  his  work.  At  all  events,  he  states 
more  plainly  than  they  the  precise  manner  of 
its  operation  in  the  salvation  of  men. 

In  II.  Corinthians  5 :  19  Paul  asserts  that  "  God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself." 
The  world  here  is  mankind  in  general,  so  far  as 
they  had  heard  of  Christ  and  had  become  united  to 
God  by  means  of  him;  and,  in  both  this  and  the 
preceding  verse,  he  is  regarded  as  instrumentally 
reconciling  men  to  God.  That  which  made  him  the 
instrument  of  reconciliation,  or  the  means  by  which 
reconciliation  is  effected,  was  the  indwelling  of  God, 


11 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


63 


or  the  plenary  gift  of  the  Spirit;  for  the  Spirit  was 
given  to  him  plenarily,  John  3 :  34  intimates.  His 
life  and  teaching  exerted  a  reconciling  influence  to 
a  notable  degree.  By  his  life  and  teaching  men  were 
brought  to  see  their  condition  as  sinners  before  God, 
and  by  the  operation  of  his  spirit  they  were  brought 
to  feel  their  need  of  getting  right  with  him.  Thus 
they  were  led  to  become  reconciled  to  him  then,  and 
thus  they  are  led  to  become  reconciled  to  him  now. 

In  the  next  two  verses  Paul  represents  himself 
as  an  ambassador  of  Chrii,t,  beseeching  men  on  his 
behalf  tc  ecome  reconciled  to  God,  and  presents 
his  petition  on  the  ground  that  he  who  knew  no  sin 
was  "  made  sin  on  our  behalf,"  that  we  might  be- 
come the  righteousness  of  God  in  him.  And  he 
urges  his  prayer  with  the  earnestness  of  a  man 
through  whom  God  was  directly  speaking,  for  he 
beseeches  those  addressed  as  though  God  were  en- 
treating them  by  means  of  him.  Nowhere  is  the 
atoning  love  of  God  more  powerfully  described  than 
in  this  passage,  and  nowhere  is  the  moral  character 
of  atonement  in  Christ  more  plainly  expressed.  "  If 
any  man  is  in  Christ,  Paul  says,  "he  is  a  new 
creature."  To  be  in  Christ  is  to  be  in  spiritual  union 
with  him.  Men  get  morally  right  with  God  by  be- 
coming spiritually  one  with  Christ  in  volitional  free- 
dom from  conscious  or  intentional  sin. 

When  Paul  says  in  the  twenty-first  verse  that  he 
who  knew  not  sin  was  "  made  sin  on  our  behalf," 


64 


AT  ONEMENT 


he  employs  a  paradox,  or  a  form  of  speech  designed 
to  produce  a  strong  impression.  He  does  not  mean 
that  Christ  was  made  a  sin  offering,  for  that  would 
destroy  the  antithesis  to  "  righteousness  "  contained 
in  the  verse,  and  would  require  the  word  for  "  sin  " 
to  be  understood  in  different  senses  in  the  same  sen- 
tence. Nor  does  he  mean  that  Christ  was  made  a 
sin-bearer,  as  if  he  had  borne  or  carried  our  sins, 
for  sin  cannot  be  transferred,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  passage  about  bearing  or  carrying  sins.*  Nei- 
ther does  he  mean  that  God  caused  Christ  to  assume 
human  guilt,  as  some  have  suggested,  for  guilt  no 
more  than  sin  can  be  transferred.  But  Paul  means 
that  God  appointed  Christ  to  do  a  certain  work,  and 
permitted  him  in  the  performance  of  it  to  be  treated 
as  if  he  had  been  a  sinner. 

A  similar  explanation  should  be  given  of  Galatians 
3:13,  where  Christ  is  said  to  have  become  "a 
curse  "  on  our  behalf.  He  is  there  represented  as 
a  devoted  victim  on  whom  sin  was  symbolically  laid, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  scapegoat;  and  the  meaning  is 
that  he  allowed  himself  to  be  treated  as  one  accursed. 
By  going  to  the  cross  in  the  discharge  of  duty  he 
became,  as  it  were,  a  devoted  thing.  In  this  as  in 
the  other  passage,  we  have  a  Hebrew  form  of  speech, 


'In  a  later  chapter  it  will  be  shown  that  to  bear  sins  or 
iniquities  means  in  the  Bible  to  bear  the  consequences  of  sin. 
With  this  meaning  the  Suffering  Servant  in  Isaiah  53: 11  is 
described  as  bearing  the  iniquities  of  the  unrighteous  Israelites. 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  65 

and  a  highly  figurative  form  at  that.  In  each  pas- 
sage his  voluntary  act  is  viewed  as  a  providential  ap- 
pointment, and  his  treatment  as  a  permissive  one. 
He  was  commissioned  to  do  voluntarily  for  us  that 
which  led  him  to  be  despitefully  used  on  our  behalf, 
that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him,  or  in  union  with  him,  as  the  phrase  implies. 
When  stripped  of  metaphor,  the  thought  in  each 
verse  is  very  manifest.  * 

What  Paul  says  in  11.  Corinthians  5 :  19  harmo- 
nizes with  what  is  said  in  Romans  3 :  23-26.  a  beau- 
tiful but  badly  understood  group  of  verses,  whose 
import,  owing  to  the  employment  of  the  term  trans- 
lated "  propitiation,"  has  generally  been  overlooked. 
But  for  the  presence  of  that  term,  there  would  have 
been  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the  meaning,  as 
all  the  other  words  employed  are  very  common  ones. 
Prior  to  our  dealing  with  these  verses,  therefore, 
we  must  resume  our  study  of  the  term  that  has 
caused  so  much  confusion,  because  it  furnishes  the 
key  to  this  ver>'  expressive  passage. 

The  word  in  Greek  is  a  neuter  adjective  used  as 
a  substantive,  signifying  a  propitiatory,  and  is  em- 
ployed in  the  Septuagint  to  translate  the  Hebrew 
word  for  the  lid  of  the  ark.  In  that  way  it  is  used 
in  Hebrews  9:5,  the  only  other  Xnv  Testament 
passage  in  which  it  occurs;  and  there  it  is  rendered 
in  the  English  versions  "  mercy-seat,"  which  denotes 
the  cover  of  the  ark.    That  was  the  place,  it  will  be 


66 


AT  ONEMENT 


r*  ^ii 


remembered,  where  divine  mercy  was  publicly  dis- 
pensed, and  where  human  sins  were  symbolically 
covered;  for  the  lid  of  the  ark  was  simply  a  symbol 
of  the  merciful  presence  of  Jehovah.  It  expressed 
something  propitious  in  him,  or  that  in  him  which 
forgives.  Hence  in  each  of  these  passages  the  word 
is  used  in  the  sense  of  a  symbolic  covering,  or  a 
symbolic  propitiatory  covering,  because  men  looked 
upon  the  lid  of  the  ark  as  an  instrument  of  atone- 
ment, or  a  means  of  reconciliation.  By  inserting 
one  of  these  phrases  in  the  passage  under  consider- 
ation the  meaning  will  become  immediately  ap- 
parent. 

At  the  twenty-third  verse  of  the  chapter,  the 
author  proceeds  to  exhibit  the  nature  of  the  salva- 
tion which  constitutes  the  gospel  of  Christ  a  reve- 
lation of  the  divine  righteousness— a  righteousness 
that  extends  to  all  men,  and  is  effectual  on  all  who 
believe.  Then,  to  give  a  simple  rendering,  he  goes 
on  to  say,  "  All  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God;  but  all  are  freely  declared  righteous » 
by  his  grace  through  the  deliverance  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  whom  God  set  forth  an  instrument  of  atone- 
ment,^ through  faith  in  his  blcod,  for  a  proof  of 

'The  Greek  word  rendered  "being  justified"  in  the  English 
versions  means  being  declared  righteous,  and  is  well  translated 
"pronounced  righteous"  in  The  Twentieth  Century  New 
Testament. 

*The  authors  u*  The  Twentieth  Century  New  Testament  In- 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


67 


his  righteousness,  because  of  the  pretermission, 
in  the  forbearance  of  God,  of  the  sins  that  were 
previously  committed;  for  a  proof  also  of  his  right- 
eousness at  the  present  time,  to  the  effect  that  he  is 
righteous  and  that  he  declares  righteous  him  who  is 
of  faith  in  Jesus." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Christ  is  not  said  to  have 
made  a  propitiation,  but  that  he  is  said  to  have  been 
a  propitiatory,  or  an  instrument  of  atonement.  It  is 
he  himself,  and  not  his  work,  that  is  so  designated. 
That  fact  should  have  kept  men  from  thinking  that 
anything  he  did  had  any  influence  on  God.  As  God 
is  love,  and  cannot  be  made  propitious,  the  word 
must  be  used  of  Christ  in  a  symbolic  sense;  and,  as 
God  set  him  forth  before  the  world  to  do  something 
for  him,  it  must  symbolize  something  in  God.  And 
the  context  tells  us  plainly  why  he  was  set  forth.  It 
was  to  demonstrate  the  divine  righteousness  in  two 
respects :  first,  to  prove  that  God  was  righteous  when 
he  passed  over  the  sins  that  men  committed  in  igno- 
rance before  the  coming  of  Christ;  and,  secondly, 
to  prove  that  God  is  righteous  in  pardoning  the  sins 
of  those  who,  since  the  advent,  have  faith  in  Christ. 
He  was  set  forth  solely  with  the  view  of  expressing 
the  divine  character  and  of  declaring  the  divine  pur- 
pose, so  that  he  was  a  propitiatory  only  in  the 
sense  of  manifesting  the  perfect  love  of  God.    And 

sert  the  phrase,  "a  means  of  reconciliation,"  which  is  a  proper 
alternative. 


I 


I 


I 


hi 


!      » 

I    it 


68 


AT  ONEMENT 


li  i 


that  is  the  very  thought  which  is  expressed  in  John 
3:16.  The  two  passages  are  the  same  in  that  re- 
spect. 

Because  the  covering  of  the  ark  was  called  a  pro- 
pitiatory, some  have  supposed  that  the  flesh  of  our 
Lord,  which  veiled  his  deity,  was  a  covering  of  our 
sin,  but  that  supposition  is  as  unscriptural  as  it  is 
gross.    The  propitiatory  represented  the  symbolic 
covering  of  sins,  and  Christ  represents  that  in  God 
which  symbolically  covers  sins.  He  was  a  means  of 
reconciliation,  not  of  propitiation,  because  propiti- 
ation   suggests   that   God    requires    something   to 
render  him  propitious.    Nor  does  the  word  propiti- 
atory imply  that  there  was  anything  in  sacrificial 
offering  that  moved  God  to  forgiveness  or  that  made 
it  possible  for  him  to  forgive.    That  which  moves 
him  to  forgiveness  is  repentance,  and  that  which 
makes  it  possible  for  him  to  forgive  is  a  changed 
relation  on  the  part  of  man.    No  offering  can  move 
him,  nor  can  anything  influence  him,  in  the  sense 
of  operating  on  him.     It  is  he  who  influences  us 
by  operating  on  us.    Instead  of  intimating  that  God 
needs  something  to  render  him  propitious,  the  pas- 
sage indicates  that  he  is  so  kindly  disposed  towards 
men  that  he  presented  Christ  to  them  as  a  proof  of 
his  propitiousness. 

During  the  past  few  years  scholars  have  dis- 
covered from  various  sources  that,  to  an  extent  not 
formerly  supposed,  the  New  Testament  is  written 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


69 


in  the  normal  language  of  Greek-speaking  peoi^e 
whose  vocabulary  was  that  of  what  is  known  as 
later  Greek.  In  an  important  work,  Professor 
Deissmann  has  shown  the  significance  of  contempo- 
rary usage  in  regard  to  the  word  translated  pro- 
pitiatory, and  his  remarks  corroborate  the  explana- 
tion given  above.  In  some  inscriptions  belonging 
to  the  close  of  the  first  century,  he  finds  that  the 
word  is  used  as  a  common  term  for  "  a  votive  or 
propitiatory  gift."  Those  for  whom  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans  was  designed,  he  says,  would  certainly 
understand  the  verse  before  us  in  the  sense  that  God 
set  forth  Christ  publicly  for  a  demonstration  of  his 
goodness.* 

So  we  obtain  the  same  result  from  this  passage 
that  we  obtained  from  the  previous  one.  Christ  is 
a  votive  or  propitiatory  gift  from  God  to  men,  set 
forth  to  demonstrate  his  love  to  them,  and  to  bring 
them  into  harmony  with  his  will.  And  a  similar 
result  is  obtainable  from  the  other  passages  where 
the  word  propitiation  occurs.  A  different  word  is 
used  in  the  original,  but  it  is  derived  from  the  same 
root  as  the  one  we  have  just  explained,  and  it  is 
applied  to  Jesus  in  a  very  similar  way.  There  are 
two  verses  to  be  examined,  and  each  of  these  is  in 
the  first  epistle  of  John.' 

^"  Bible   Studies,"    pp.     124-135,    Authorized  translation. 

'In  Romans  the  word  used  is  IXaff^nf^wv;  in  this  epistle  we 
have  the  word  IXnrit^.  The  former  is  a  purely  ecclesiastical 
term. 


li 


I 


70 


AT  ONEMENT 


■-(  -T-   i»- 

PI 

'4 1 


In  chapter  2:2,  after  saying  that  if  any  man 
should  sin,  we  have  a  helper  (paraclete)  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,  the  apostle  adds. 
*'  he  is  a  propitiation  in  behalf  of  our  sins,  and  not 
in  behalf  of  ours  only,  but  also  in  behalf  of  (those) 
of  the  whole  world."  Here,  by  the  figure  of  metony- 
my, the  act  standing  for  the  actor  or  agent,  Jesus  is 
called  a  "  propitiation,"  just  as  he  is  called  a  "  sanc- 
tification"    in    I.    Corinthians    1:30;    and    John 
teaches  that  he  is  our  atoner  or  reconciler,  just  as 
Paul  teaches  that  he  is  our  sanctifier.    It  is  not  the 
work  of  Christ,  but  Christ  himself,  that  is  said  to 
be  a  propitiation,  each  one  should  notice  again.    He 
himself  is  an  instrument  of  atonement,  or  a  means 
of  reconciliation.    He  is  our  helper  with  the  Father, 
not  to  dispose  him  to  be  favourable  towards  us,  but 
to  show  that  he  is  favourably  disposed;  and  to  assure 
us  that,  in  case  we  do  sin,  he  is  faithful  and  right- 
eous to  forgive  us  our  sins  and  to  cleanse  us  from 
all  unrighteousness,  as  is  expressly  stated  a  couple 
of  verses  earlier  in  the  epistle. 

When  Wesley,  therefore,  and  the  older  theolo- 
gians in  general  taught  that  Christ  was  "  the  atoning 
sacrifice  by  which  the  wrath  uf  God  is  appeased," 
they  overlooked  the  figurative  character  of  the  term 
employed,  and  read  a  heathen  meaning  into  it.  The 
act  of  atonement  expressed  in  the  term  symbolizes 
an  act  of  covering  or  pardoning  on  the  part  of  God. 
To  speak  with  Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss,  "  This  act  is 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  71 

not,  as  in  the  classical  and  Hellenistic  use  of  lan- 
guage, that  by  which  God  is  made  gracious  again, 
but  corresponding  to  the  Old  Testament  representa- 
tion of  sacrifice,  that  by  which  the  sin  is  covered 
from  the  eyes  of  God  and  so  expiated."*  It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  sin  can  be  only  figu- 
ratively or  symbolically  covered  from  his  eyes. 

In  chapter  4: 10,  where  the  word  occurs  again, 
its  use  is  almost  more  apparent.  Having  said  in 
the  preceding  verse  that  the  love  of  God  is  mani- 
fested in  us  by  the  sending  of  his  only  begotten  Son, 
the  apostle  continues,  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we 
loved  God.  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son 
a  propitiation  in  behalf  of  our  sins."  Here  we  have 
the  same  use  of  the  word  by  the  same  figure  of 
metom-my.  Here,  too,  it  is  Christ  himself,  and  not 
his  work,  that  is  said  to  be  a  propitiation.  He  is 
so  designated  because  he  was  sent  to  manifest  the 
love  of  God  to  men  and  to  reconcile  them  to  him. 
Hence  he  is  an  instrument  of  atonement,  or  a  means 
of  reconciliation,  as  in  each  other  case.  If  the 
meaning  of  the  term  in  the  other  passages  had  been 
obscure,  though  in  neither  of  them  is  there  the 
sli^test  obscurity,  the  meaning  in  this  passage 
would  be  obvious.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  gift  of 
Jesus  is  r^arded  as  a  demonstration  of  the  love  of 
God, 

'See  Meyer's  Gnnmentary  on  this  passage,  fifth  German 
edition. 


72 


AT  ONEMENT 


J. 


i 


If      '' 

■I      J 


One  passage  more   remains  to  be  considered, 
namely,  Hebrews  2:17,  where  Christ  is  said  to 
have  been  made  like  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be- 
come a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest,  "  to  make 
reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people."    The  peo- 
ple for  whom  he  is  said  to  make  reconciliation  are. 
as  in  other  parts  of  this  epistle,  the  historic  people 
of  Jehovah,   though   the   scope   of   the   apostle's 
thought  embraces  the  spiritual  Israel  in  every  age. 
Jesus  is  here  represented  under  the  figure  of  a  priest, 
or  a   mediator  between   God  and   men;    for  the 
Hebrew  priest  held  the  office  of  reconciliation.    To 
discharge  faithfully  the  duties  of  a  priestly  office,  it 
was  necessary  for  him  to  be  made  like  his  brethren, 
and  to  be  tempted  like  them.    Othenvise,  the  writer.' 
means,  he  could  not  have  become  a  compassionate 
high  priest. 

It  should  be  carefully  noticed  that  nothing  Jesus 
did  is  here  said  to  have  exerted  any  influence  on  God. 
To  either  a  prophet  or  an  apostle  such  a  thought 
was  inconceivable.  All  that  the  passage  teaclies  is 
that,  as  the  high  priest  made  atonement  s>-mbolically 
for  the  sins  of  the  people,  so  Jesus  may  be  viewed 
as  having  done  the  same ;  for  the  verb  to  make  recon- 
ciliation is  here  used  just  as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint 
translation  of  Psalms  25:  ir  and  65:3/  It  was 
God  who.  of  his  own  accord,  covered  or  cancelled 
the  sins,  we  have  seen;  it  is  he  himself,  therefore, 

'  In  each  of  these  psalms  the  verb  lUaKo^  is  employed. 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  73 

who  makes  atDneinent  or  reconciliation  for  sin  in 
each  and  every  case.  The  Biblical  writers  are  a  unit 
on  this  point. 

To  say.  as  .>^(.,ine  ha  e  said,  that  the  word  is  used 
to  express  a  changed  feeling  on  the  part  of  God,  is 
to  say  what  is  contrary  to  fact;  for  nothing  Jesus 
is  repi>rted  to  have  done  is  represented  as  having 
any  effect  wha^ver  upon  God.  His  love  is  free  to 
all  who  desire  it  and  his  grace  is  given  to  all  who 
will  receive  it.  As  atonement  is  in  his  character, 
the  sole  necessity  fur  reconciliation  lies  in  the  sinful 
attitude  of  man.  If  theologians  had  fully  perceived 
what  thca[)ostles  have  plainly  declared,  namely,  that 
Jesus  was  set  forth  to  demonstrate  the  righteousness 
and  manifest  tlie  luve  of  God,  they  would  have  seen 
the  unreasonableness  of  supposing  that  an)thing 
he  did  couIJ  make  any  change  in  the  divine  mind. 

From  the  last  passage  it  ai/i>ears  that  the  author 
regards  the  work  of  Christ  as  mediative.  just  as 
Paul  regards  it,  and  just  as  the  evangelists  regard 
it.  The  author  of  I.  Timothy  2:  5  not  only  views 
him  as  a  mediator,  but  also  emplo\ .,  the  very  word. 
To  give  a  literal  rendering  of  the  verse,  he  says, 
**  For  one  is  God:  one  also  is  a  mediator  of  God  an'! 
men,  a  man  Christ  Jesus."  The  conjunction  "  for 
assigns  the  reas^jn  for  the  statejiicni  in  the  prece-'ing 
verse  that  God,  our  Saviour,  desires  all  men  to  be 
saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
The  sa-.ing  truth  of  the  Gospel,  or  the  truth  as  it 


I 

I- 


74 


AT  ONEMENT 


If- 


H  if 


1         fl 


if 


It 


IS  m  Jesus,  the  writer  means.    In  his  thought,  to  be 
conscously  saved  is  to  have  a  practical  acquaintance 
with  saving  truth.    There  is  only  one  way  of  gaining 
such  an  experience,  the  verse  teaches;  and  he  who 
IS  called  Christ  Jesus  has  not  simply  pointed  out, 
but  IS  himself,  the  way.    As  one  alone  is  God,  so 
one  alone  is  mediator  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term, 
that  IS,  m  the  sense  of  revealing  the  will  of  the 
Saviour,  and  of  expressing  that  in  him  which  saves. 
Christ  being  a  mediator  does  not  imply,  as  some 
theologians  have  suggested,  that  God  is  an  offended 
sovereign,  who  can  be  approached  only  by  his  be- 
loved Son.  with  the  price  of  redemption  in  his  hand. 
The  very  notion  is  abhorrent.    The  tenn  mediator 
means  a  go-between,  and  in  'he  Scriptures  it  has 
an  ethical  significance.   Its  Biblical  use  is  well  shown 
m  the  Septuagint  translation  of  Job  9:33,  where 
the  Hebrew  word  for  "  daysman,"  or  "  umpire  "  is 
rendered  by  the  same  Greek  word  that  stands  in 
the  verse  we  are  now  studying;  so  that  a  mediator 
IS  one  who  acts  as  an  agent  to  settle  a  dispute  of 
some  kind,  or  one  who  interposes  to  set  matters 
right  between  two  parties  at  variance  with  each 
other.    Hence  Christ  is  an  interposer,  or  a  go-be- 
tween to  mediate  peace  between  mankind  and  God 
In  Galatians  3 :  19  Moses  is  styled  a  mediator,  be- 
cause he  was  the  medium  of  communicating  to  the 
Israelites  a  portion  of  the  law  of  God.  or  a  measure 
of  divine  truth.    His  mediatorship  was  one  of  mani- 


ordinary,  but 
evan- 


ih-^ 


ti   I 


t. 


tedly 
ctcr. 
is  a 


'  •  '  i(  .J, 

iiav   Mo-es,  be- 

f   ^niiif.  station 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST  75 

festation  for  a  certain  people,  at  a  certain  period  in 
history;  though,  so  far  as  he  communicated  funda- 
mental ideas,  he  was  a  mediator  also  for  those  sul>. 
sequent  to  his  time.  The  author  of  I.  Timothy, 
however,  refers  to  Jesus,  vr  .^ 
as  an  extraordinary,  medial  1  .r  ! 
gelists  show  him  to  havf  c^  tot 
speak  of  him  as  manii.  ii. '  M(  r 
As  the  perfect  reveale^  (  i  .  is  . 
mediator  in  a  much  h      or  •  . 

cause  his  mediatorshu,   i     r   .      ..„„„. 

for  all  classes  of  men,  and  tor  nil  pen  fs  of  time! 
His  mediatorship,  moreover,  *i  -'  not  consist  in 
manifestation  merely,  but  m  reconciliation 
of  the  estranged  parties,  God  and  men.  Com- 
ing between  them  as  a  peace-maker,  no  less 
than  a  revealer,  he  is  a  reconciler  of  man  to 
God. 

As  to  the  way  he  mediates  we  are  told  in  the 
next  verse.  He  gave  himself  "  a  ransom  in  behalf 
of  all ";  to  translate  literally  the  apostle's  words, 
which  are  similar  to  those  of  Matthew  and  Mark,' 
and  convey  the  same  idea,  we  have  seen.  In  th^ 
exercise  of  his  office,  he  gave  himself  a  ministratior 
or  a  means  of  service,  for  mankind.  It  was  the 
giving  of  himself  completely  and  the  manifestation 
of  the  Father's  character  fully  that  made  him  the 
unique  mediator.  He  had  more  to  give  than  any 
other,  and  he  gave  all  he  had.    That  "  ransom  " 


76 


AT  ONEMENT 


';  i- 


N  ■ 
,1  ' 


has  the  force  of  service  here  is  proved,  not  only 
by  the  way  the  evangelists  use  it,  but  also  by  the 
the  way  word  is  used  in  Proverbs  13:8.  There  the 
author  of  the  passage  says,  "  The  ransom  of  a  man's 
life  is  his  riches,"  meaning  that  money  is  a  service 
to  a  man  in  time  of  danger,  a  means  of  deliverance 
when  a  thief  or  robber  threatens  to  take  his  life. 
The  notion  of  advantage  is  common  to  each  passage, 
and  that  was  the  notion  in  the  apostle's  mind.  Christ 
is  the  divinely  qualified  instrument  for  getting  men 
right  with  God,  or  the  divinely  appointed  medium 
of  reconciling  them  to  him. 

The  passages  examined  make  it  plain  that  it  is 
man,  not  God,  that  needs  to  be  reconciled.  That 
God  is  willing  to  be  reconciled  to  men  and  wants 
them  to  be  reconciled  to  him,  is  taken  for  granted  by 
every  Biblical  writer.  That  it  was  presupposed  by 
Paul  is  proved  by  his  statement  that  God  was  recon- 
ciling men  to  himself  through  the  life  and  teaching 
of  our  Lord.  It  is  also  proved  by  what  he  states  in 
the  preceding  verse,  that  '*  All  things  are  of  God, 
who  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ,"  that 
is,  through  his  life  and  teaching.  God  is  the  source 
of  all  that  has  to  do  with  human  salvation.  He  is 
the  author  of  the  work  both  of  reconciling  men  and 
of  creating  them  anew.  It  is  he  who  effects  the 
reconciliation,  no  less  than  the  regeneration.  He 
is  the  origin  of  the  whole  process  of  restoration  and 
redemption,  for  from  him  proceeds  the  love  that 


f'1 

n 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


•n 


gave  us  Christ  and  the  grace  that  has  come  to 
us  through  him. 

His  mediation  did  not  produce  that  love,  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  say,  nor  was  it  in  any  sense 
a  moving  cause.  On  the  contrary,  that  love  was  the 
originating  cause  of  his  mediatorial  work.  Neither 
did  his  mediation,  let  it  be  said  once  more,  make  any 
change  in  God.  It  did  not  affect  his  attitude,  much 
less  his  character,  because,  as  stated  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  his  character  is  unchangeable,  and  his  atti- 
tude is  always  the  same.  To  amplify  what  was  there 
stated,  a  Being  of  perfect  love  knows  no  such  thing 
as  change.  The  heavenly  Father  loves  his  children 
even  when  offended  at  them  or  displeased  with  them, 
and  is  seeking  all  the  time  to  woo  them  to  himself 
and  win  them  from  their  sin.  In  our  relations  with 
him,  it  is  the  offended,  not  the  offending,  party  that 
seeks  to  be  reconciled.  The  change  effected  by  for- 
giveness, therefore,  is  not  in  offended  God,  but  in 
offending  man,  since  he  is  the  one  that  changes  the 
relationship.  His  sin  causes  the  estrangement,  and 
it  is  the  party  causing  the  estrangement  that  must 
c'lange.  There  is  no  bar  to  peace  in  God;  the  sole 
barrier  is  in  man. 

We  may  now  see  the  Scriptural  significance  of 
the  work  of  Christ.  In  its  pract;  .al  aspect  it  was 
manwards,  wholly  manwards.  While  his  work  has 
its  Godward  side,  it  is  manwaids  in  its  operation. 
His  mediation  has  been  shown  to  have  had  an  effect 


Si' 

Si 


If- 


r^ 


IH- 


78 


AT  ONEMENT 


on  man,  and  not  on  God;  and  it  was  necessary,  not 
to  enable  him  to  forgive  us,  nor  to  enable  us  to 
approach  him,  but  to  incline  us  to  repent  and  turn 
to  him.  In  other  words,  the  object  of  his  mediato- 
rial mission  was  not  to  make  God  propitious,  but 
to  make  men  penitent,  by  giving  them  a  true  concep- 
tion of  him,  and  by  bringing  them  into  a  conscious 
acquaintance  with  him.  To  epitomize  the  simple 
teaching  of  the  evangelists,  he  came  to  call  sinncs 
to  repentance  by  informing  them  that  God  is  their 
Father,  and  by  assuring  them  that  he  is  as  willing 
to  forgive  them  when  they  repent  and  confess  as 
an  earthly  parent  is  to  forgive  his  child.  He  came 
to  seek  and  save  lost  men  by  animating  therp  with 
new  hopes  and  by  imparting  to  them  new  impulses. 
He  came,  in  short,  to  redeem  mankind  from  sin  by 
communicating  to  them  his  spirit  and  by  inspiring 
them  with  his  life. 

Each  passage  that  relates  to  the  subject  testifies 
to  the  same  great  fact,  that  all  he  did  was  done  on 
our  behalf  and  for  our  sake.  And  what  he  did  was 
done  not  simply  for  our  sake,  but  to  the  intent  that 
we  should  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in 
this  present  world,  as  Titus  2:  12  teaches.  For  he 
gave  himself  on  our  behalf,  the  fourteenth  verse 
declares,  "  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all 
iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  people  for 
his  own  possession,  zealous  of  good  works." 
No    better    proof    is    needed,    nor    could    better 


ATONEMENT  IN  CHRIST 


79 

his 


proof  be  given  of  the  manward  bearing  of 
work. 

We  can  never  estimate  the  value  or  compute  the 
power  of  what  he  did,  but  his  mediation  was  a 
moral  agency.  He  undertook  a  moral  task,  in 
accordance  with  a  divine  purpose,  and  he  brought 
it  to  completion  by  purely  moral  means.  The 
earthly  work  of  Jesus,  therefore,  consisted  in  the 
life  he  lived,  the  doctrine  he  taught,  the  death  he 
died,  and  the  spirit  he  bestowed,  in  loving  obedience 
to  the  will  of  the  Father,  to  effect  the  reconciliation 
of  men  to  God. 

Self-manifestation  is  an  attribute  of  the  Deity, 
and  he  has  always  been  manifesting  himself  to  men, 
and  by  means  of  men.  For  this  reason,  he  has  had 
his  mediators  among  every  people  and  in  every  age. 
In  Galatians  3:  19,  we  have  noticed,  Moses  is  ex- 
pressly mentioned  as  a  mediator;  and  in  Isaiah  43: 
2^  the  ancient  prophets  are  described  as  mediators 
or  interpreters.  The  prophets  mediated  Jehovah 
to  the  Israelites  by  communicating  to  them  his  truth 
and  interpreting  to  them  his  will,  so  that  interpreta- 
tion forms  an  important  part  of  mediation. 
Similarly  Zoroaster,  Confucius,  Buddha,  and  Mo- 
hammed were  mediators  to  those  to  whom  they 
communicated  the  truth  and  interpreted  the  will 
of  God.  On  the  same  principle,  all  great  person- 
alities are  mediators,  so  far  as  they  manifest 
the  divine  character  to  others;   and   so,  indeed, 


1 


8o 


AT  ONEMENT 


!i 


"V' 


are  good  men  everywhere,  each  one  in  his  own 
degree. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  have  been 
many  mediators,  in  the  unique  sense  of  the  term 
there  has  been  only  one  mediator,  and  that  is  the 
man  Christ  Jesus.  As  the  perfect  revelation  of  the 
Father  he  is  his  perfect  mediator  because,  as  previ- 
ously stated,  his  mediation  consists  not  in  mediation 
merely,  but  in  reconciliation,  as  well.  Those  who 
become  consciously  reconciled  to  God  are  reconciled 
through  him,  or  through  spiritual  union  with  him. 

In  a  deep  divine  sense,  therefore,  though  he  is 
not  so  described  in  Scripture,  he  may  be  called  our 
atonement,  just  as  in  Ephesians  2:  14  he  is  called 
our  peace;  for  he  mediates  reconciliation,  no  less 
than  peace.  By  uniting  men  to  himself  and  inspir- 
ing them  with  his  life,  he  not  only  produces  peace 
among  them,  but  also  draws  them  into  at-one-ment 
with  God. 


IV 

ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 

COMING  to  the  third  factor,  we  have  now  to 
consider  the  nature  of  atonement  in  man, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures.  Since  he  is 
the  party  practically  concerned,  or  the  party  solely 
concerned  in  the  practical  sense,  the  human  factor 
is  important  next  to  the  divine.  Its  importance  will 
appear  as  we  proceed,  because  atonement  in  man  is 
subjective  and  e.xperimentative. 

At  the  outset  it  was  stated  that,  while  the  word 
atonement  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Old 
Testament,  it  occurs  but  once  in  the  Authorized, 
and  not  at  all  in  the  Revised,  Version  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  was  also  stated  that,  while  the  root 
of  the  verb  to  atone  in  Hebrew  m*:ans  to  cover  or 
cancel,  the  word  itself  is  used  in  the  sense  of  pardon- 
ning  or  forgiving;  because,  when  God  forgives  men, 
their  sins  are  viewed  by  the  Hebrew  writers  as 
atoned,  and  the  atonement  is  regarded  as  his  act.  It 
is  he  who  covers  or  cancels  sins;  it  is  he  who 
pardons  or  forgives  sinners;  it  is  he  who  removes 
their  guilt  and  frees  them  from  condemnation. 

Though  the  verb  from  which  it  is  derived  is  used 

II 


'3wmi^ 


I  i 


82 


AT  ONEMENT 


:k 


hi 


of  God  in  the  Bible,  the  term  atonement  is  not  there 
used  of  him.  The  noun  is  employed  only  of  some 
one  making  atonement  or  of  the  day  on  which  atone- 
ment was  made.  In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Leviti- 
cus the  high  priest  is  directed  to  make  atonement 
for  himself  and  for  the  people  on  the  great  day  of 
national  humiliation,  but  his  act,  as  said  before, 
was  a  purely  symbolic  one.  What  he  did  was  only 
an  object-lesson,  for  God  was  known  to  pardon 
sinners  of  his  own  accord.  And,  since  the  verb  in 
question  means  to  make  atonement,  as  well  as  to 
cover  or  cancel,  he  may  consistently  be  said  to  make 
atonement.  It  seems  important  to  repeat  this  fact, 
because  so  many  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
offences  towards  God  are  expiated  by  the  sacrificial 
work  of  Christ.  His  work,  however,  was  redemp- 
tive but  not  expiatory,  as  has  been  demonstrated. 

We  have  one  example  of  the  Old  Testament  usage 
m  Hebrews  2: 17,  the  reader  will  recall.  In  that 
ierse  Jesus  is  represented  as  a  merciful  and  faithful 
high  priest,  "  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins 
of  the  people."  But,  as  he  was  a  high  priest  only 
in  a  spiritual  sense,  he  made  atonement  merely 
in  a  spiritual  way.  According  to  the  Scripitures 
God  is  our  atonement,  and  he  reconciles  men  to 
himself  through  Christ.  Though  some  phases  of 
the  process  have  already  been  explained,  the  way 
in  which  he  does  this  needs  to  be  much  more  fully 
shown. 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


83 


The  only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where 
the  Authorized  Version  has  the  term  atonement  is 
Romans  5:11,  and  there  the  word  in  Greek  denotes 
reconciliation,  or  a  change  from  enmity  to  friend- 
ship. The  original  is  rightly  rendered  by  the  Revis- 
ers, "  We  rejoice  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  through  whom  we  have  now  received  the 
reconciliation."  Atonement  is  reconciliation,  and 
the  doctrine  ought  always  to  have  been  explained 
ill  accordance  with  that  fact.  The  context  shows, 
it  should  be  noticed,  that  the  word  in  Greek  is 
used,  not  for  the  means  by  which  reconciliation 
between  God  and  man  is  effected,  but  for  the  recon- 
ciliation itself. 

The  nature  of  the  reconciliation  is  indicated  in 
the  preceding  verse,  where  the  writer  speaks  of 
those  who  have  been  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
of  his  Son.  Hence  the  manifest  meaning  of  the 
term  in  this  passage  is  the  experience  into  which 
those  enter  who  are  brought  into  harmony  with 
God  through  Christ.  It  is  the  state  of  being  recon- 
ciled to  him,  or  the  change  experienced  when  friend- 
ship takes  the  place  of  enmity.  Nothing  is  here 
said  as  to  how  reconciliation  is  effected.  That  is 
made  plain  elsewhere.  The  simple  fact  is  stated 
that  we  have  become  reconciled. 

To  treat  this  aspect  of  the  subject  thoroughly, 
let  us  ask,  first,  what  makes  reconciliation  neces- 
sary.   If  God  is  their  Father  and  men  are  his  chil- 


II  i 


AT  ONEMENT 


pi. 
P 


dren,  why  need  they  to  be  reconciled  to  him  ?  The 
answer  is,  because  most  of  them  are  prodigals, 
having  erred  or  strayed  from  his  paths.  At  some 
time  or  other  all  have  erred  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
extent.  As  Romans  3 :  23  says,  "  All  have  sinned, 
and  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God,"  for  the  reason 
suggested  in  chapter  8 : 7,  that  the  carnal  mind,  or 
the  mind  of  the  flesh,  is  enmity  against  him,  being 
more  or  less  in  opposition  to  him.  By  the  mind 
of  the  flesh  is  meant  that  in  the  flesh  which  tends 
to  insubmission.  This  tendency  springs  from  self- 
ishness and  upregenerate  desire.  Owing  to  selflsh 
and  insubmissive  tendencies,  all  men  fall  short  of 
the  divine  ideal. 

Estrangement  springs  from  insubmission,  and 
insubmission  leads  to  sin.  Insubmission  to  God, 
indeed,  is  sin.  Sin  estranges  by  separating  man 
from  his  Maker.  The  author  of  Isaiah  59:  i,  2 
is  emphatic  on  this  point.  To  give  a  literal  render- 
ing again,  he  says,  "  The  hand  of  Jehovah  is  not 
too  short  to  save,  nor  is  his  ear  too  heavy  to  hear; 
but  your  iniquities  have  made  a  barrier  between 
you  and  your  God,  and  your  sins  have  hidden  his 
face  from  you,  so  that  he  does  not  hear."  The  sole 
hindrance  to  friendship  and  fellowship  is  on  the 
side  of  man.  His  sin  has  been,  and  continues  to  be, 
the  cause  of  alienation.  Other  than  that  which 
sin  has  made,  there  is  no  barrier  to  be  removed, 
no  chasm  to  be  bridged,  no  wall  to  be  overthrown. 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


8S 


So  the  necessity  for  reconciliation  comes  from 
sin. 

Let  us  next  inquire  how  reconciliation  is  effected. 
If  sin  has  separated  from  God,  the  natural  way 
would  be  to  restore  the  union  by  righting  the  rela- 
tionship. All  that  should  be  needed  is  to  remove 
the  cause  of  alienation,  reason  suggests;  and, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  is  all  that 
is  required.  This  is  shown  in  the  case  of  the  Prodi- 
gal Son.  As  soon  as  he  was  ready  to  return  to 
his  father,  the  father  was  ready  to  receive  him. 
And  this  is  what  the  apostle  teaches  in  terms  which 
cannot  be  too  deeply  impressed.  "  If  we  confess 
our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive 
us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteous- 
ness." Open  confession,  though  natural,  is  not 
demanded,  but  inward  acknowledgment  is.  What 
God  demands  is  a  complete  turning  from  sin  to 
righteousness.  But  all  intentional  sin  produces 
guilt,  and  every  conscious  sinner  feels  himself  guilty 
before  God.  Hence  confession  is  the  spontaneous 
act  of  a  contrite  heart. 

Reconciliation  is  thus  conditioned  on  contrition 
and  confession,  or  penitence  and  amendment. 
Those  are  the  sole  conditions,  for  they  involve  a 
sorrow  for  sin  and  a  turning  away  from  it;  and 
divine  pardon  presupposes  both.  As  the  prophet 
says,  to  quote  again  another  verse  which  cannot  be 
too  strongly  emphasized,  "Let  the  wicked  forsake 


86 


AT  ONEMENT 


i. 


,1 


If 


I 

.4  I 


his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts; 
and  let  him  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  him;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abun- 
dantly pardon."  Till  sinners  change  their  attitude, 
as  well  as  their  mind,  by  righting  their  relationship 
to  God,  they  have  not  truly  repented;  and,  without 
true  repentance,  which  is  turning  from  sin  to  holi- 
ness, divine  forgiveness  is  impossible.  Sorrow  for 
sin  has  no  significance,  unless  it  lead  to  improve- 
ment or  reform. 

If  the  willingness  of  God  to  forgive  is  to  result 
in  union  between  him  and  the  sinner,  as  the  prophet 
teaches,  he  must  forsake  his  way  and  relinquish 
his  unrighteous  thoughts.  Both  prophets  and 
apostles  taught  that  reconciliation  is  effected  by 
ethical  means,  and  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  refor- 
mation of  conduct.  In  his  charge  to  the  presbyters 
at  Miletus,  as  recorded  in  Acts  20: 21,  Paul  declares 
that,  during  his  stay  in  proconsular  Asia,  he  had 
proclaimed  to  both  Jews  and  Greeks  the  duty  of 
"  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  towards  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Faith  towards  the  Lord  Jesus 
means  allegiance  to  his  truth,  and  devotion  to  him 
whom  he  reveals  and  represents.  Hence  penitence 
and  amendment  are  equivalent  to  repentance  and 
faith;  and  these,  if  genuine,  produce  holiness  of 
heart  and  life. 

All  that  a  sinner,  therefore,  is  required  to  do  is 
to  adjust  his  relations  to  God  so  as  to  be  in  harmony 


Hi  u^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


87 


with  him;  and  to  keep  them  adjusted,  by  the  aid  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  so  as  to  make  harmonious  action 
possible  and  continuous.  There  has  thus  to  be  a 
thorough  moral  change,  in  order  to  get  right  with 
God  and  keep  right  with  him.  Though  formal  con- 
fession may  be  a  sign  of  sincerity,  the  amended  life 
is  the  proof  of  an  inward  change.  God  sees  the 
heart,  however,  and,  as  soon  as  we  repent  of  sin 
and  turn  away  from  it,  forgiveness  takes  place. 
Genuine  repentance  brings  instant  pardon,  I.  John 
1:9  implies;  and  Psalm  32:5  suggests  that  the 
moment  honest  acknowledgment  is  made  that 
moment  divine  forgiveness  is  obtained. 

But  the  reconciliation  is  received  through  Christ, 
the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  says,  which 
means  through  our  interest  in  him  and  our  oneness 
with  him  as  the  unique  mediator  of  God.  We  be- 
come reconciled  to  the  Father  in  virtue  of  our 
spiritual  union  with  the  Son.  In  II.  Corinthians 
5: 17-19  the  manner  of  the  reconciling  is  described 
by  Paul  both  negatively  and  positively.  Looking  at 
its  negative  aspect,  he  says  that  God  reconciles  men 
to  himself  by  not  reckoning  to  them  their  trespasses, 
which  is  the  same  as  saying  that  he  cancels  or  for- 
gives their  sins;  looking  at  its  positive  aspect,  he 
says  that  God  reconciles  men  to  himself  by  re-creat- 
ing them,  so  that  each  man  in  Christ,  or  each  one 
in  union  with  him,  is  a  new  being. 

Thus  God  reconciles  men  to  himself  by  remitting 


MtCROCOPV  RESOlUriON  TiST  CHAIT 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


IK 

lis 


tarn 

1^ 

■  02 
13.6 

1^ 

|40 

1^ 

^  /APPLIED  IN/t^GE    Ir 

^S"^  1653  East  Main  Street 

BTA  Rochester,  Neo  York        1*609       USA 

'^S  (716)   482 -0300 -Phone 

^S  (716)  288  -  5989  -  Fa« 


§ 


88 


AT  ONEMENT 


their  sins  and  by  creating  them  anew.  Forgiveness 
and  regeneration,  therefore,  are  involved  in  recon- 
cih'ation.  Paul  intimates,  moreover,  that  each  per- 
son reconciled  must  not  only  repent  of  his  sins,  but 
also  give  up  his  opposition,  or  lay  aside  his  enmity; 
because  he  states  concerning  the  man  in  Christ  that 
the  old  things  pertaining  to  life  and  conduct  have 
passed  away,  and  that  all  such  matters  have  become 
new.  Hence  reconciliation  to  God  through  Christ 
is  a  moral  transaction.  To  all  who  will  accept  them 
on  moral  terms  God  offers  both  pardon  and  peace. 

Reconciliation,  however,  is  not  a  mere  subjective 
change  of  our  feelings  towards  God,  but  a  complete 
change  of  our  relation  to  him,  so  far  as  that  rela- 
tion has  been  wrong.  There  will  be  feeling,  of 
course;  but  feeling  unaccompanied  by  action  is 
of  no  consequence.  Self-condemnation  does  no 
good,  unless  it  cause  us  to  repent  and  turn  away 
from  sin.  Reconciliation  to  God  through  Christ 
is  a  moral  transaction  which  involves  restitution, 
also,  as  far  as  that  is  possible.  Though  often  dis- 
regarded, that  element  is  an  important  one,  as  was 
observed  before. 

It  should  here  be  mentioned  that  reconciliation 
may  be  either  conscious  or  unconscious.  But, 
whether  conscious  or  unconscious,  in  each  case  it 
is  received  through  Christ,  because,  as  previously 
explained,  Christ  represents  the  anointed  spirit  of 
God,  that  spirit  which  redeems  or  saves.     There- 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


89 


fore,  as  atonement  is  in  his  character,  God  recon- 
ciles men  to  himself  through  union  with  Christ, 
the  personal  spirit  wh'ch  saves,  whether  they  ever 
heard  of  Jesus  or  not.  Therein  lies  the  significance 
of  Acts  4: 12,  that  in  no  other  name  is  there  salva- 
tion, because  there  is  no  other  name  (character 
or  spirit)  wherein  we  may  be  saved.^ 

While  it  is  the  privilege  of  those  who  hear  of 
him  to  be  consciously  reconciled,  those  who  have 
not  the  Gospel  may  get  measurably  right  with 
God,  because  an  impartial  Being  deals  with  men 
according  to  their  inward  character,  or  their 
spiritual  relation  to  him.  Hence,  if  they  live  up 
to  the  light  they  have,  or  the  knowledge  they  pos- 
sess, they  are  regarded  by  him  with  favour,  though 
they  may  not  be  aware  of  it.  In  principle,  the 
divine  requirements  are  the  same  for  all,  as  was 
said  substantially  in  the  second  chapter. 

Many  a  man  is  accepted  who  is  not  conscious 
of  the  fact,  just  as  many  a  man  is  saved  who  does 
not  know  it.  This  is  the  case  in  Christian  com- 
munities, as  well  as  in  heathen  countries.  Jesus 
shows  us  how  to  become  conscious  of  our  accept- 
ance, and  how  to  know  that  we  are  declared  right- 

'The  preposition  iv  in  this  verse  is  rendered  rightly  in  the 
Revised  Version,  but  wrongly  in  the  Authorized.  The  reader 
will  observe  that  we  are  said  to  be  saved  not  by  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  but  in  his  name,  that  is,  by  union  and  association 
with  him.  As  forgiveness  is  in  Christ  alone,  so  salvation  is 
in  him  alone,  too. 


u 


r  ■ 

I 


I 


'  K 


!  i 


ii  iJ 


'V  M 


:i  ,  Mir 


'hi 


II    -'V 


90 


AT  ONEMENT 


eous;  but  some  who  study  the  Gospel  do  not  fully 
apprehend  its  meaning,  and  so  are  not  wholly  as- 
sured of  their  acceptance.  But  all  who  understand 
the  Scriptures  may  have  the  assurance  that  they 
are  acceptable  to  God,  and  that  he  regards  them 
as  righteous  in  virtue  of  their  interest  in  Christ. 

Ere  we  pass  from  this  phase  of  the  subject  to 
examine  some  misused  expressions  and  ambiguous 
passages,  a  few  additional  remarks  should  be  made 
regarding  divine  forgiveness.     God  forgives  men 
of  his  own  accord  and   for  his  own  sake,  the 
prophets   and   psalmists   teach.     Then   Ephesians 
4 :  32  teaches  that  he  forgives  them  "  in  Christ," 
and  I.  John  2:12  speaks  of  their  being  forgiven 
"for  his  name's  sake."'     The  last  two  phrases 
are  of  equal  import  and  have  an  equal    force. 
Since  the  name  of  God  means  the  divine  character 
as  revealed  or  manifested,  so  the  name  of  Christ 
means  his  character  as  revealing  or  manifesting 
the  Father.     God  forgives  us  for  his  o\^'n  sake, 
but  he  forgives  us  in  Christ.     To  be  forgiven  in 
Christ  implies  that  we  are  morally  one  with  him, 
and  to  be  forgiven  on  account  of  his  name  implies 
that  we  have  his  character  and  possess  his  spirit. 
Participation  in  his  life  is  what  each  apostle  means. 
Apart  from  our  oneness  with  him  and  our  pos- 
session of  his  spirit,  there  is  no  redemptive  effect 

*  More  literally,  "  on  account  of  his  name,"  that  is,  his  char- 
acter or  spirit  in  us. 


I. 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


91 


on  us  from  his  work.  Hence  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  "  imputed  righteousness  "  in  the  sense  of 
reckoning  vicariously,  or  attributing  something  on 
account  of  another.  Though  a  theological  expres- 
sion, it  is  not  a  Scriptural  one.  Nothing  moral  can 
be  imputed,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not 
said  in  Scripture  to  be  imputed.  Romans  4:3 
states  that  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
reckoned  unto  him  for  righteousness.'"  But  it 
was  his  faith,  or  active  obedience,  not  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  that  was  reckoned  to  him;  and 
such  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteousness,  because 
it  installs  a  man  in  a  right  moral  relation  to  God. 
Righteousness  is  not  imputed;  it  is  realized  by 
personal  effort  through  the  exercise  of  faith. 

Another  theological  phrase  requires  to  be  cor- 
rected in  this  connection.  People  speak  of  being 
saved  or  of  finding  favour  through  the  "  merits  " 
of  Christ.  But  it  is  nowhere  suggested  in  Scrip- 
ture that  we  are  saved  by  his  merits  or  in  any  way 
morally  benefited  by  them.  He  bore  the  conse- 
quences, not  the  condemnation,  of  human  sin,  for 
condemnation  implies  personal  guilt.  God  does 
not  confer  moral  benefit",  upon  us  by  virtue  of  the 
merits  of  another.  Everything  in  the  Bible  con- 
travenes the  idea.  Nothing  counts  with  him  but 
a  right  relation  to  him  and  a  right  attitude  towards 

'  The  preposition  here  is  eft,  which  denotes  direction.    Faith 
IS  regarded  by  God  because  it  is  towards  or  unto  righteousness. 


92 


AT  ONEMENT 


I'l      !   ■ 


1       :i.!: 


life.  Merit  cannot  be  transferred  any  more  than 
righteousness  can  be  imputed.  We  are  saved  by 
the  grace  of  God  through  union  with  Christ,  the 
Scriptures  teach;  and  it  is  the  power  of  his  truth 
and  the  operation  of  his  spirit  that  prompt  us  to 
enter  into  the  true  relationship. 

To  be  saved  through  Christ,  his  spirit  must  come 
into  us,  because  salvation  is  a  state  of  moral  right- 
ness  with  God.  It  is  that  state  into  which  regener- 
ation brings  us  when  we  become  transformed  by 
the  renewing  of  our  mind.  It  is  this  inward  change 
that  constitutes  the  essence  of  a  Christian  life.  We 
can  never  estimate  the  importance  of  his  work  to 
us  or  the  magnitude  of  our  debt  to  him,  but  nothing 
Christ  has  done  for  us  can  avail  to  save  us,  if  we 
are  not  in  moral  harmony  with  God.  Like  right- 
eousness, salvation  is  a  matter  of  experience  result- 
ing from  communion  with  him  and  devotion  to 
his  will,  not  something  to  put  to  our  credit  inde- 
pendently of  our  personal  co-operation  with  him. 
It  is  only  by  our  living  righteously  and  practising 
morality  that  God  regards  us  as  righteous. 

The  apostles,  like  the  prophets,  were  primarily 
religious  teachers.  Like  the  prophets,  too,  they 
were  preachers  of  righteousness  rather  than 
teachers  of  theology;  but  theologians  have  misun- 
derstood and  misrepresented  much  of  what  they 
taught.  Take,  for  instance,  I.  Corinthians  15:22 
*— "  As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


93 


be  made  alive."  Here  Adam  stands  for  the  Adamic 
or  unregenerate  nature,  and  Christ  stands  for  the 
renewed  or  regenerate  nature.  The  terms,  Adam 
and  Christ,  are  thus  used  symbolically  and  repre- 
sentatively— the  former  denoting  participation  in 
the  characteristics  of  the  first  man,  whose  origin 
is  described  as  from  earth^the  latter  denoting  par- 
ticipation in  the  characteristics  of  the  second  man, 
whose  origin  is  described  as  from  heaven.  So  the 
contrast  is  between  earth-born  qualities  and  heaven- 
born  qualities. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  chapter  the  apostle 
explains  what  he  means  by  the  term.  The  first 
man  Adam  became  a  living  soul,  or  a  living  being, 
he  says,  in  the  forty-fifth  verse;  the  second  (man) 
Adam  became  a  quickening  or  life-giving  spirit. 
Viewing  the  first  man  as  the  head  of  the  human 
race,  he  views  the  second  man  as  his  antitype,  be- 
cause he  regards  Christ  as  the  head  of  a  new 
spiritual  seed,  or  an  order  of  men  possessed  of  his 
life-giving  spirit.  In  the  thought  of  the  apostle, 
we  derive  from  the  first  man  that  nature  which 
renders  us  liable  to  corporeal  and  spiritual  death, 
but  from  the  second  man  that  nature  which  insures 
to  us  immortality  and  resurrection.  The  newly 
quickened  life  is  derived  from  Christ  through  per- 
sonal union  with  him,  of  course.  The  idea  in  this 
epistle  is  more  fully  developed  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  where  physical  death  is  certainly  not 


i  ! 


k 


94 


AT  ONEMENT 


the  question  raised,  but  death  as  an  unregenerate 
state  of  soul. 

In  chapter  5:12,  explaining  the  necessity  for 
the  reconciliation  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse, 
the  apostle  says,  "  As  through  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin;  and  so 
death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned."  We 
should  naturally  expect  the  latter  part  of  this  sen- 
tence to  read,  "  Even  so,  through  one  man  right- 
eousness entered  into  the  world,  and  life  through 
righteousness,"  and  that  would  have  been  a  logical 
continuation  of  the  comparison  commenced  in  the 
first  part.  But,  instead  of  a  logical  continuation, 
we  have  a  long  digression  intended  to  illustrate  the 
assertion  vith  which  the  verse  commences,  and 
the  comparison  is  resumed  in  the  eighteenth  verse. 
The  "  one  man  "  stands,  it  will  be  noticed,  for  the 
natural  man,  or  the  unregenerate  nature,  as, 
throughout  the  chapter,  Christ  stands  for  the 
spiritual  man,  or  the  regenerate  nature.  To  quote 
from  Lange,  "Adam  and  Christ  appear  here  as 
principles  of  the  old  and  the  new  humanity."  *  We 
inherit  by  descent  from  the  one  a  nature  that  tends 
to  sin  and  death;  we  receive  through  union  with 
the  other  a  nature  that  tends  to  righteousness  and 
life. 

It  should  also  be  noticed  that,  in  the  assertion 
respecting  death,  we  have  a  statement  of  experi- 

'  Commentary  on  Romans,  in  loco. 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


95 


cnce,  not  a  statement  of  belief,  and  that  physical 
death  is  not  the  point  in  question.  There  seems,  at 
least,  to  be  no  necessary  reference  to  the  death  of 
man  merely  as  a  physical  fact,  because  the  antithe- 
sis is  plainly  between  spiritual  death  and  spiritual 
life.  That  was,  indeed,  the  practical  reason  for 
introducing  the  comparison.  To  speak  with  Bishop 
Edward  Harold  Browne,  "  The  death  which  Adam 
brought  in  is  opposed  to  the  life  which  Christ 
bestows.  That  life  is  spiritual;  hence  the  death 
which  is  antithetic  to  it  is  spiritual,  too."  * 

Having  in  the  intervening  verses  traced  some 
differences  between  the  things  compared,  or  some 
contrasts  exhibited  by  them,  the  writer  goes  on 
to  say,  "As  through  one  trespass  the  judgment 
came   unto   all   men   to   condemnation,   even   so 
through  one  act  of  righteousness  the  free  gift  came 
unto  all  men  to  justification  of  life;  for,  as  through 
the  one  man's  disobedience,  the  many  were  made 
sinners,  even  so  through  the  obedience  of  the  one 
shall  the  many  be  made  righteous."     These  two 
verses  complete  the  comparison  commenced  in  the 
twelfth  verse,  and  present  the  parallel  there  sug- 
gested in  a  very  vivid   form.     Expressed  most 
briefly,  the  conclusion  is  that,  as  all  men  are  reached 
for  condemnation  by  inheriting  a  sinful  nature 
from  the  first  man,  so  by  receiving  a  new  nature 
through  union  with  the  second  man  all  are  reached 
*  "An  Exposition  of  the  Articles,"  British  edition,  p.  249. 


*ij 


-p^a 


96 


AT  ONEMENT 


:i  !  11 


¥  -^ 


ill    I, 


for  justification,  or  the  being  declared  righteous, 
through  becoming  morally  right  with  God. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  words  "  judg- 
ment"  and   "free   gift"   in   verse   eighteen  are 
printed  in  italics,  having  been  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators from  verse  sixteen;  but  their  insertion  is 
utterly  misleading.    The  writer  does  not  speak  of 
actual  condemnation,  nor  of  actual  justification,  but 
of  something  tending  to  condemnation  in  the  one 
case  and  of  something  tending  to  justification  in 
the  other.     This  tendency  is  expressed  in  Greek 
by  the  preposition  denoting  direction,  that  is,  mo- 
tion to  or  towards;  and  a  more  adequate  rendering 
of  the  original  would  be,  "  As  by  one  sinful  act, 
it  is  (or  tends)  to  all  men  to  condemnation,  so  by 
one  righteous  act  it  is  (or  tends)  to  all  men  to 
justification  of  life."    Our    onnection  with  Adam 
tends  to  that  which  brings  divine  disfavour;  our 
connection  with  Christ  tends  to  that  which  brings 
divine  approval.    In  neither  case,  however,  is  any- 
thing unconditional  implied,  but  in  each  case  indi- 
vidual responsibility  is  presupposed.     There  must 
be  wrong-doing  on  our  part  to  incur  the  disfavour, 
as  there  must  be  right-doing  on  our  part  to  obtain 
the  approval,  of  God.     It  is  personal  action  that 
determines  our  moral  relation  to  him. 

That  fact  should  be  carefully  borne  in  mind, 
because  so  many  have  based  the  doctrine  of  impu- 
tation on  this  passage.    The  author  of  the  epistle 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN  97 

does  not  attribute  the  sin  of  Adam  to  his  posterity, 
nor  does  he  attribute  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
to  his  disciples.    No  notion  so  unreafonable  is  sug- 
gested either  here  or  elsewhere.     Though  a  theo- 
logical one,  it  is  wholly  foreign  to  Scripture.    Sin, 
like  righteousness,  is  experienced,  not  imputed,  be- 
cause each  implies  volitional  action,  which  pro- 
duces a  corresponding  state  of  so  '.    We  are  sin- 
ners, not  because  the  first  man  sinned,  but  because 
we   have   sinned;    and    we   become   sinners   only 
by  sharing  in  his  act  of  disobedience.     In  like 
manner,    we    become    righteous,    not    by    reason 
of  Christ's  obedience  to  God  on  our  behalf,  but 
by  reason  of  our  sharing  in  his  life  of  righteous- 
ness.    His  obedience  means  nothing  saving  to  us, 
apart  from  our  relation  to  him;  and  his  righteous- 
ness cannot  be  given  to  us,  unless  we  are  united 
to  him.     Nor  has  it  any  valency  for  us,  unless 
through  union  with  him  we  render  a  similar  obedi- 
ence. 

Neither  obedience  nor  righteousness  by  another 
can  make  us  morally  right  with  God.  The  indis- 
pensable requirements  are  renunciation  of  sin  and 
coalition  with  Christ.  As  the  great  mediator,  he 
both  tells  us  what  to  do  and  how  to  do  it.  He 
does  not  eflfect  the  reconciliation;  that  is  effected 
by  the  Father  through  union  with  the  Son.  But, 
when  we  put  ourselves  right  with  God  through  him, 
the  wrath  we  bring  upon  ourselves  vanishes,  as 


98 


AT  ONEMENT 


ill 


t 
&■ 


f^^ 


i    I 


I   ! 


darkness  vanishes  when  we  step  into  the  light. 
Dissolution  of  enmity  brings  immediate  peace,  as 
contact  with  sunshine  gives  immediate  warmth. 
Hence  it  is  utterly  unscriptural  to  say,  as  certain 
theologians  have  said,  that  "the  death  of  Christ 
is  the  efficient  cause  of  reconciliation  antecedently 
to  any  action  on  our  part,  or  any  effect  produced 
on  our  minds." 

In  a  previous  chapter  it  was  stated  that  nothing 
Jesus  did  was  necessary  to  make  it  possible  for 
God  to  forgive  sin,  because  nothing  was  done,  or 
could  be  done,  to  change  his  mind.  But,  though 
there  was  nothing  Christ  could  do  to  make  it  pos- 
sible for  God  to  forgive,  there  is  something  we 
must  do  in  order  to  obtain  '^orgiveness.  That  which 
renders  forgiveness  possible  is  not  the  work  of 
Christ  in  itself,  but  our  relation  to  God  in  him. 
Hence,  as  there  is  something  we  must  do  in  order 
to  get  right  with  him,  there  is  manifestly  an  ele- 
ment of  propitiation  in  atonement;  for,  when  a 
sinner  unites  himself  to  God  in  Christ,  the  divine 
displeisure  ceases  to  exist,  because  the  barrier  to 
reconciliation  is  then  removed.  The  barrier  being 
sin,  the  nature  of  the  opposition  needs  to  be  ex- 
plained. 

Reconciliation  implies  opposition  on  both  sides, 
of  course;  but  the  opposition,  though  mutual,  is  not 
identical.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  quite  different. 
The  opposition  of  man  to  God  is  the  antagonism 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN  99 

of  unrighteousness  towards  righteousness,  whereas 
the  opposition  of  God  to  man  is  the  antagonism 
of  righteousness  towards  unrighteousness.  It  is 
merely  the  necessary  hostility  of  holiness  to  sin. 
Hence  the  antagonism  is  not  similar,  much  less 
identical.  In  that  fact  lies  the  significance  of  the 
comment  of  Meyer  on  I.  John  2 :  2.  The  propitia- 
tion there  described,  he  says,  "does  not  denote 
the  reconciliation  of  God  either  with  himself  or 
with  men  .  .  .  but  the  justification  of  reconcili- 
ation of  the  sinner  with  God;  because  it  is  n'^ver 
stated  in  the  New  Testament  that  God  is  recon- 
ciled, but  rather  that  we  are  reconciled  to  God." 
When  forgiveness  takes  place,  there  is  a  change 
in  our  personal  relations,  but  the  change  is 
in  us. 

But,  if  reconciliation  is  mutual,  is  God  not  influ- 
enced by  our  change  of  relation  to  him?  In  the 
true  sense  of  that  term  he  is  not.  The  word 
influence  means  to  flow  in,  as  the  word  inspiration 
means  to  breath  in.  God  breathes  into  us,  not  we 
into  him,  and  he  flows  into  us,  not  we  into  him. 
In  strictness,  influence  is  used  of  power  coming 
from  without,  though  it  may  be  used  of  motives 
viewed  as  forces  acting  on  the  will.  Hence  we 
shoiild  speak  of  an  influence  from  God  on  us,  or 
an  inflowing  of  energy  from  him  to  us,  but  not 
of  any  influence  from  us  on  him.  Throughout  the 
Scriptures  he  is  consistently  described  as  moving 


Il  -w 


;    1 


lOO 


AT  ONEMENT 


or  impelling  men  by  the  energizing  power  of  his 

Spirit. 

Some  passages  represent  him  as  being  pleased 
or  well-pleased,  and  others  represent  him  as  being 
displeased;  but  though  such  expressions  are  Scrip- 
tural, they  do  not  mean  that  he  has  been  influenced, 
since  that  would  imply  that  he  could  be  swayed 
by  some  consideration.  Viewing  him  as  our  Father, 
it  is  quite  proper  for  us  to  believe  that  when  we  turn 
to  him  our  action  meets  with  his  approval,  because 
it  is  according  to  his  will;  but  our  action  exerts 
no  influence  on  him  in  the  sense  of  causing 
him  to  do  what  he  was  not  always  willing 
to  do,  had  our  relation  to  him  permitted  it  to  be 

done. 

The  God  of  the  Bible  does  all  he  can  for  every 
person  all  the  time.    He  does  not  need  to  be  influ- 
enced, nor  could  we  influence  him,  if  he  did.    He 
acts  of  his  own  accord,  and  is  moved  with  com- 
passion for  every  one  in  every  worthy  condition. 
He  sympathizes  spontaneously  with  every  aspira- 
tion after  goodness,  and  recognizes  immediately 
every  impulse  towards  improvement.     He  marks 
every  motion  of  the  soul,  and  welcomes  every  in- 
clination to  do  right.    The  fact  that  the  Prodigal 
had  repented  and  had  resolved  to  make  confession 
was  sufficient  of  itself,  the  evangelist  tells  us,  to 
elicit  the  father's  forgiveness.    The  parable  proves, 
also,  that  God  regards  the  least  desire  to  reform, 


ATONEMENT  IN  MAN 


lOI 


and  accepts  the  feeblest  effort  to  get  right  with 
him. 

It  has  now  been  shown  that  atonement  in  man 
is  gained  by  a  right  relation  to  God  through 
Christ,  and  that  the  reconciliation  is  effected,  not 
by  a  change  made  in  him  by  the  work  of  Christ, 
but  by  a  change  produced  in  those  of  us  who  are 
influenced  by  it;  for  his  work  is  the  channel,  so  to 
speak,  through  which,  in  all  its  fulness,  the  love 
of  God  is  conveyed  to  us.  Forgiveness  is  granted, 
not  on  the  ground  of  his  righteousness,  but  on  the 
ground  of  our  repentance;  not  by  reason  of  his 
merits,  but  by  reason  of  our  morals;  not  because 
of  his  perfect  obedience,  but  because  of  our  volun- 
tary devotion  to  the  divine  will. 

The  practical  way  of  getting  right  with  our 
heavenly  Father  is  the  practical  way  of  getting  right 
with  an  earthly  parent,  and  the  Scriptural  view 
of  becoming  reconciled  to  God  is  the  apostolic  view 
of  becoming  a  Christian.  In  II.  Corinthians  5:  17 
Paul  declares  that,  if  any  man  is  in  Christ,  he  is 
a  new  being;  and  in  II.  Corinthians  12:2  he  de- 
scribes himself  as  "  a  man  in  Christ,"  meaning  one 
in  spiritual  union  with  him.  Hence,  according  to 
New  Testament  teaching,  conscious  atonement  is 
mediated  to  us  through  Christ  by  our  becoming 
one  with  him  in  spirit  and  purpose,  in  mind  and 
thought,  in  heart  and  life,  so  that  each  one  who 
is  consciously  reconciled  may  say  with  the  apostle, 


« 


i    I 


il 


11 ''' 


I-;, 


11  ''^ 


I02 


AT  ONEMENT 


"I  live;  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in 
me."  Through  our  moral  oneness  with  him  God 
enables  us  to  do  what,  but  for  his  mediation,  we 
could  not  consciously  have  done.  By  such  a  one- 
ness he  becomes  a  living,  moving  force  in  us. 


-i-i 


1    «■   i? 


V 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE 


EVERY  standard  treatise  on  atonement 
makes  much  of  sacrifice,  and,  though  it  is 
a  subordinate  element,  much  requires  to  be 
made  of  it;  but  traditional  theologians  have  mis- 
conceived its  significance,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
have  misplaced  their  emphasis.  The  bringing  of 
an  oblation  was  known  by  \he  Old  Testament 
writers  to  be  a  symbolic  act,  and  the  sacrificial  work 
of  Christ  was  known  by  the  New  Testament  writers 
to  have  an  effect  on  man,  and  not  on  God.  They 
knew,  also,  that  everything  pertaining  to  his  medi- 
atorial mission  was  operative  only  in  that  way. 

As  stated  substantially  in  the  opening  chapter, 
atonement  is  chiefly  used  by  theologians  in  the  sense 
of  something  given  to  God  of  such  a  character  as 
to  procure  his  favour  and  forgiveness.  The  offering 
has  commonly  taken  the  form  of  sacrifice,  or  suffer- 
ing, or  something  of  that  sort.  By  each  of  these 
means  a  man  might  seek  to  make  amends  for  an 
offence,  and  so  get  right  with  the  Being  against 
whom  he  had  sinned.  The  voluntary  self-sacrifice 
of  Jesus  has  long  been  considered  an  oblation  to 

lOJ 


^^^H'' ' 

V 

■ 

III 

■ 

^1; 

M 

^B 

m 

■^^■j 

A ' 

^■1, 

'V 

^^^B 

It, 

1(  - 

^H\ 

i 

i;  i'l! 


.1;  ' 


If  ^ 


4    ■; 


104 


AT  ONEMENT 


God  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  though  the  evan- 
gelists and  apostles  teach  explicitly  that  he  suffered 
in  behalf  of  sinners  and  on  account  of  sin. 

Since  atonement  in  sacrifice  has  to  be  traced  his- 
torically, an  inquiry  must  first  be  made  into  the 
religious  significance  of  sacrifice  because,  from  a 
remote  period  in  the  past,  sacrificial  rites  of  one 
kind  or  another  have  been  associated  with  religious 
worship.  Such  rites  were  originally  practised  by 
Hebrew  as  well  as  heathen  worshippers,  and  were 
once  thought  by  all  classes  of  men  to  have  an  ap- 
peasing influence  on  God.  Just  when  the  Hebrews 
outgrew  that  conception  is  not  certainly  known 
and  cannot  be  definitely  determined. 

Etymologically,  to  sacrifice  means  to  make  sa- 
cred, so  that  a  sacrifice  is  something  rendered  sacred, 
especially  to  a  deity.  As  an  institution,  sacrifice 
has  both  a  divine  and  a  human  side,  and,  for  that 
reason,  has  a  twofold  bearing — ^the  one  Godvvards, 
the  other  man  wards.  Therefore,  each  of  these  two 
aspects  must  be  independently  considered.  In  the 
logical  order  the  consideration  of  the  manward 
aspect  claim*  .  'ority. 

Finding  u..  ^elf  dependent  on  the  powers  of 
nature,  primitive  man  would  sooner  or  later  be 
inspired  with  fear  or  with  gratitude  towards  the 
beings  he  conceived  as  operating  behind  those 
powers.  Such  feelings  would,  doubtless,  manifest 
themselves  in  an  endeavour  either  to  placate  or  to 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        105 

please  those  beings  with  offerings  indicative  of 
terror  or  of  thankfulness,  as  the  case  might  be. 
These  offerings  may  not  have  had  a  strictly  ethical 
significance. 

In  some  such  way,  we  may  imagine,  offerings 
of  propitiation  and  of  thanksgiving  would  arise; 
and,  since  the  disposition  to  propitiate  is  as  charac- 
teristic of  people  at  the  present  time  as  it  was  in 
prehistoric  times,  propitiatory  offering  may  have 
been  the  earliest  form  of  sacrifice.  But  whatever 
may  have  been  its  earliest  form,  as  a  religious  cere- 
mony, it  appears  to  have  sprung  from  a  sense  of 
responsibility.  Though,  at  the  beginning,  it  may 
not  have  been  connected  with  a  consciousness  of 
sin,  a  moral  significance  was  afterwards  attached 
to  it. 

When  man  had  risen  high  enough  in  the  scale 
of  intelligence  to  feel  answerable  for  his  conduct, 
he  would  be  driven  by  an  inward  impulse  to  express 
in  outward  acts  his  obligation  of  indebtedness  to 
the  divinity  he  reverenced.  Hence  sacrifice,  like 
worship,  seems  to  be  instinctive  in  humanity.  Like 
worship,  too,  it  seems  to  be  a  spontaneous  expres- 
sion of  spiritual  need.  The  prompting  to  offer  has 
always  appeared  as  soon  as  men  have  attained  a 
certain  degree  of  development,  and  among  all 
races  that  have  become  sufficiently  developed  the 
custom  of  offering  has  at  some  time  or  other  been 
observed. 


m 


jl 

1  ^^'' 

I 


i,. 


I  m 


I  i    f 


io6 


AT  ONEMENT 


Having  been  dictated  by  a  natural  instinct,  sacri- 
fice had  a  human  origin,  and  should  be  regarded  as 
a  human  ordinance.  A  difference  of  opinion  on 
this  point  has  long  prevailed,  but  modern  scholars 
are  practically  of  one  mind  with  respect  to  it;  and 
all  students  of  Church  history  are  aware  that,  in 
the  main,  the  Christian  Fathers  viewed  sacrifice 
as  a  human,  not  a  divine,  ordinance.  But,  though 
sacrifice  is  not  a  divine  institution,  as  a  religious 
rite  or  ceremony  it  has  a  divine  element  in  it. 
Every  prompting  to  offering  something  as  an  act 
of  worship  is  of  God,  but  the  form  the  offering 
takes  is  always  of  man.  In  substantial  agreement 
with  this  remark,  Eusebius  ascribes  the  origin  of 
the  institution  to  a  divine  inspiration,  but  the  lan- 
guage used  does  not  suggest  that  he  thought  it 
originated  in  a  divine  command.* 

Sacrifices  are  enjoined  in  Exodus  23 :  14-19  and 
in  Deuteronomy  16:2-16,  but  very  little  stress  is 
laid  upon  them,  and  in  neither  book  are  they  de- 
scribed as  having  a  divine  origin.  They  are  en- 
joined as  tlenents  of  a  system  of  worship,  not 
in  consequence  of  a  command  from  God.  In  other 
words,  they  are  mentioned  merely  as  parts  of  a 
religious  ritual,  some  features  of  which  are  modi- 
fied survivals  of  a  more  primitive  form  of  sacri- 
ficial service.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Pentateuch, 
however,  to  imply  that  those  who  prepared  the  rit- 
*"Detn.  Evang.,"!.,  10. 


•    *  3  I    I 


hi  4 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        107 

ual  viewed  oblations  as  possessing  a  divine  author- 
ity. They  were  evidentally  sanctioned  for  a  tem- 
porary purpose,  and  that  purpose  was,  as  in  the  case 
of  all  other  ritual  observances,  a  disciplinary  one. 

God  did  not  command  sacrifice,  or  the  offering 
of  material  objects,  nor  does  a  \y  Biblical  writer 
intimate  a  belief  that  he  did.  On  the  contrary, 
several  writers  state  emphatically  that  he  did  not 
desire,  much  less  require,  external  offerings.  Jere- 
miah 7 :  22  represents  Jehovah  as  saying  that  he 
had  not  spoken  unto  the  fathers,  nor  commanded 
them  in  the  day  that  he  brought  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  or  sac- 
rifices; Psalm  40: 6  asserts  that  he  has  not  desired 
sacrifice  and  offering,  and  that  he  has  not  required 
burnt  offering  and  sin  offering;  and  Psalm  51 :  16, 
17  declare  that  he  neither  desires  sacrifice  nor 
delights  in  burnt  offering,  but  that  the  sacrifices 
of  God  (those  he  approves  and  accepts)  are  a 
broken  spirit  and  a  contrite  heart.  The  specific 
sin  offering  is  mentioned  only  once  in  the  Psalms, 
and  then  simply  to  show  that  it  is  not  desired, 
as  was  stated  in  the  second  chapter  of  this  work. 

These  Biblical  statements  are  both  clear  and 
conclusive  as  to  the  origin  of  the  institution  in  the 
opinion  of  those  writers.  They  should  not  be  un- 
derstood as  absolutely  prohibiting  sacrifice,  how- 
ever, nor  should  they  be  regarded  as  an  absolute 
repudiation  of  sacrificial  worship;  but  each  passage 


H 


I      11!. 


^i 


r^( 


i. 


fe    . 


1! 


:i  '1 


io8 


AT  ONEMENT 


expresses  the  attitude  of  representative  thinkers 
towards  priestly  ritual  at  the  time  when  it  was  writ- 
ten. In  this  connection,  it  is  worth  remarking  that 
no  direction  is  given  in  the  Decalogue  concerning 
sacrifice,  and  that  no  mention  is  made  of  the  insti- 
tution among  the  Ten  Commandments. 

On  the  manward  side,  therefore,  sacrifice  was 
a  material  offering  expressive  of  dependence  and 
indebtedness,  or  of  reverence  and  thankfulness, 
towards  a  power  higher  than  human  that  is  present 
in  the  world  and  operative  throughout  the  universe. 
The  impulse  to  offer  something  to  the  being  he 
acknowledged  was  a  sign  that  man  desired  to  be 
on  good  terms  with  the  object  of  his  worship. 
Wishing  to  enjoy  the  favour  of  that  being,  he 
sought  to  establish  a  friendly  relationship  by  giving 
to  him  a  portion  of  what  he  had  received  from  him ; 
so  that,  in  a  true  sense,  sacrifice  expressed  a  long- 
ing on  the  part  of  man  for  fellowship  with  God. 

The  significance  of  sacrifice  on  the  Godward  side 
was  different  among  different  nations,  and  varied 
with  the  progress  of  revelation.  By  all  primitive 
peoples,  apparently,  Hebrew  as  well  as  heathen, 
offerings  were  once  supposed  to  meet  a  physical 
need  in  the  beings  to  whom  they  were  presented. 
They  seem,  indeed,  to  have  been  originally  con- 
ceived as  the  food  of  the  gods.^    But  no  Old  Testa- 


'See  W.   R.   Smith,   "Religion   of   the   Semites,"  p. 
Revised  edition,  and  Skinner  on  Isaiah  i:ii. 


224, 


'.  4 


I 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        109 

ment  writer  appears  to  have  entertained  that  idea 
concerning  Jehovah.  The  idea,  if  it  ever  existed 
among  the  Hebrews,  was  abandoned  by  their 
teachers  before  the  time  of  Moses,  though  how 
long  anterior  to  his  time  we  do  not  know. 

That  the  conception  of  offerings  as  the  food  of 
the  gods  was  at  one  time  prevalent  is  generally 
admitted,  and  that  it  lingered  a  good  while  in  the 
popular  belief  of  the  Israelites  is  considered  prob- 
able from  such  passages  as  Isaiah  i :  1 1  and  Psalm 
50: 13 — the  first  of  which  describes  Jehovah  as 
being  satiated  with  burnt  offerings,  the  second  of 
which  describes  him  as  being  incapable  of  either 
eating  flesh  or  drinking  blood.  The  language  of 
these  descriptions  is,  of  course,  to  be  taken  tropi- 
cally or  metaphorically.  In  each  passage  the 
speaker  is  reproving  a  guilty  people  for  its  neglect 
of  social  and  moral  duties,  and  one  object  of  the 
psalmist  is  to  show  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that 
God  has  need  of  anything  that  man  could  give. 

Certain  verses  also  in  Leviticus,  such  as  chapter 
21:6,  8,  17,  which  speak  of  offerings  as  "the 
bread  "  of  God,  should  be  treated  in  a  similar  way. 
The  phrase  seems  clearly  to  be  a  survival  from  an 
early  period  when  a  low  view  of  God  and  a  gross 
conception  of  sacrifice  prevailed.  But  the  Penta- 
teuchal,  no  less  than  the  prophetic,  view  of  Jehovah 
as  a  purely  spiritual  Being  is  inconsistent  with  the 
notion  that  either  the  Levites  or  the  prophets  or  the 


;iii 


no 


AT  ONEMENT 


psalmists  imagined  that  he  required  material  sup- 
port. In  the  Old  Testament  three  stages  respecting 
the  significance  of  sacrifice  in  relation  to  God  may 
be  distinctly  ttaced. 

For  a  long  time  great  importance  was  attached 
to  the  sacrifice  itself.  Its  observance  was  enjoined 
by  statute,  and  the  laws  of  sacrificial  service  were 
as  rigid  as  they  could  well  be.  Only  a  certain  kind 
of  object,  it  will  be  remembered,  of  a  certain  quality, 
could  be  offered,  and  that  only  after  a  certain 
fashion  and  at  a  certain  time;  and  an  atoning  sac- 
rifice could  be  oflfered  only  by  a  certain  person  in 
a  certain  place.  The  offering  of  a  statutory  sacri- 
fice, moreover,  was  thought  to  be  agreeable  or  pleas- 
ing to  Jehovah,  and  the  withholding  of  such  a  sac- 
rifice was  thought  to  be  displeasing  to  him.  Such 
passages  as  Genesis  8: 21,  which  speaks  of  Jehovah 
sriTjlHng  "sweet  savour,"  and  Leviticus  1:9,  13, 
17,  which  speak  of  an  offering  of  "  a  sweet  savour  " 
imply  that  particular  emphasis  was  then  placed  on 
the  character  of  the  object  offered. 

Before  we  consider  the  next  stage,  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  words,  "a  sweet  savour,"  are 
employed  anthropomorphically  to  indicate  that  an 
offering  was  graciously  accepted,  not  to  show  that 
God  was  favourably  influenced.  In  the  original  they 
signify  "  an  odour  of  pleasantness,"  or  "  a  pleasant 
odour,"  and  the  expression  is  a  common  one  in 
the  Levitical  terminology.     The  Greek  paraphrase 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        iii 

is  used  in  Ephesians  5 :  2  of  the  voluntary  self-sac- 
rifice of  Christ  and  in  Philippians  4:18  of  the 
spontaneous  benefactions  of  Christians.  In  neither 
case,  however,  does  it  suggest  propitiation,  but  in 
each  case  it  expresses  the  acceptableness  of  the  of- 
fering.   Both  acts  were  such  as  God  approves. 

In  later  times  it  was  perceived  that  the  impor- 
tance of  a  sacrifice  depended  not  so  much  on  the 
character  of  the  offering  as  on  the  relation  of  the 
offerer  to  other  men.  No  dishonest  or  unrighteous 
person,  however  costly  his  oblations,  could  obtain 
the  divine  favour  on  account  of  them.  Strictness 
in  ritual  could  not  atone  for  laxity  in  morals.  The 
routine  of  sacrifice,  though  punctiliously  observed, 
was  nothing  in  itself.  Destitute  of  purity  and  up- 
rightness on  the  part  of  him  who  brought  it,  an 
offering  was  a  mere  matter  of  form;  and,  if  any- 
thing was  presented  merely  as  a  matter  of  form, 
the  act  was  considered  hypocritical  and,  therefore, 
hateful  to  Jehovah.  It  had  no  value  and  served 
no  purpose.  All  such  oblations  were  as  empty  as 
they  were  impious. 

The  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  before  Christ 
are  emphatic  in  their  condemnation  of  formality 
and  hypocrisy.  Jehovah  regards  righteousness,  not 
ritual,  Amos  5:22  teaches;  he  desires  mercy,  not 
sacrifice,  Hosea  6:6  says;  he  demands  equity,  not 
ceremony,  Isaiah  i :  10-17  declare.  The  combina- 
tion of  ritual  with  immoral  conduct  was  regarded 


;lii 


113 


AT  ONEMENT 


II 


by  tliese  prophets  as  a  gross  insult  to  God.*  Their 
statements  respecting  the  paramountcy  of  moral 
duties  express  substantially  the  sentiments  of  all 
subsequent  prophets.  They  contain  what  Oehler  has 
termed  "  the  programme  of  prophecy,"  *  namely, 
that  righteous  dealing,  not  ritual  observance,  is 
what  Jehovah  wants.  Thence lorth  the  perform- 
ance of  ceremony  without  the  practice  of  morality 
was  held  to  be  vain  and  valueless.  At  this  stage 
of  sacrificial  teaching  the  greatest  emphasis  was 
placed  on  justice  or  righteousness  on  the  part  of 
all  who  worshipped  Jehovah. 

At  a  later  period  still  it  was  perceived  that  ex- 
ternal conformity  to  law  was  not  sufficient.  There 
had  to  be  internal  conformity,  also.  To  offer  an 
acceptable  sacrifice  one  must  have  a  proper  rela- 
tion to  God,  as  well  as  to  man.  The  inward  spirit, 
not  less  than  the  outward  practre,  must  be  right. 
At  that  time  there  was  a  special  itisistence  on  inward 
rectitude,  because  it  was  then  seen  that  personal 
purity  was  the  only  sure  foundation  of  character, 
and  that  a  man's  relation  to  his  Maker  determined 
his  relation  to  his  fellows.  As  character  is  admit- 
tedly the  mainspring  of  national  life,  personal  purity 
would  be  a  guarantee  of  public  righteousness. 


*  The  same  sentiment  occurs  in  I.  Samuel  15 :  22,  but  the 
whole  chapter  appears  to  be  out  of  place,  and  seems  to  reflect 
the  thought  of  an  age  subsequent  to  that  of  Samuel. 

•  '•  Old  Testament  Theology,"  Am.  ed.,  p.  452. 


i  I 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        113 

A  statement  in  Micah  6 :  6^  illustrates  the  teach- 
ing of  th-s  period.  In  a  dramatic  passage,  the  date 
of  which  is  disputed,*  Jehovah  is  represented  as 
complaining  of  neglect  on  the  part  of  his  people, 
and  the  people  are  made  to  plead  ignorance  as  the 
ground  of  their  neglect.  Will  Jehovah  be  pleased 
with  a  multitude  of  sacrifices,  or  even  with  the  offer- 
ing of  children?  the  speaker  asks.  In  reply  to 
this  question  the  prophet  says  that  all  Jehovah  re- 
quires of  them  is  justice,  compassion,  and  humility; 
or,  more  exactly,  to  do  r\^ht,  to  love  kindness, 
and  to  walk  humbly  wit  their  God.  The  last 
requirement,  a  humble  walk  witii  God,  is  fun- 
damental to  the  other  two,  and  regfulative  of 
them. 

S->me  of  the  psabnists  are  equally  insistent  on 
spirituality,  or  inward  rectitude.  The  author  of 
Psalm  40 : 6-8  shows  that  true  service  consists  not 
in  external  observances,  but  in  loving  obedience  to 
the  divine  will;  the  author  of  Psalm  50:  14,  15 
shows  similarly  that  it  consists  not  in  the  material 
sacrifices  of  the  altar,  but  in  the  spiritual  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving,  and  the  author  of  Psalm  51:  17 
shows  still  more  plainly,  if  possible,  that  it  consists 
not  in  outward  oflFerings  of  any  kind,  but  in  the 
inward  offering  of  the  heart.  Thus  the  importance 
attached  to  sacrifice  varied  from  age  to  age,  and  at 

>The  style  and   structure   suggest   an   author   other  than 
Jljcah,  and  the  sentiment  suggests  a  date  later  than  his  time. 


I 


I 

I 

I 

I 


I 


t 


's'. 


\i 


',i"i 

:''« 


114 


AT  ONEMENT 


this  stage  of  sacrificial  instruction  the  greatest  em- 
phasis was  placed  on  the  disposition  of  the  heart 
towards  God. 

There  was  evidently  a  gradual  development, 
therefore,  in  the  Godward  significance  of  sacrifice, 
the  conception  becoming  clarified  by  the  growth  of 
religious  knowledge.  As  one  race  of  teachers  suc- 
ceeded another,  there  would  be  a  slow  advance  from 
crudity  and  externality  to  purity  and  spirituality, 
lower  ideas  giving  way  to  higher,  and  moral  expres- 
sions of  religious  homage  taking  the  place  of  mate- 
rial ones.  With  one  accord  the  later  prophets  and 
psalmists  emphasized  prayer  and  praise  rather  than 
ritual  and  ceremony.  They  saw  that  righteousness, 
in  the  personal  sense  of  the  term,  was  the  sole 
divine  requirement — not  merely  justice  between 
man  and  man,  but  a  right  state  of  heart  towards 
both  God  and  man;  and  that  outward  offerings 
were  not  simply  repugnant,  but  intolerable,  to  Jeho- 
vah, unless  accompanied  with  a  reverent  spirit  and 
followed  by  a  righteous  life. 

The  fact  that  God  had  signally  manifested  his 
loving  favour  towards  the  Israelites  during  the 
desert  wanderings,  when  sacrifice  could  not  be 
formally  offered,  may  have  helped  their  teachers 
to  perceive  what  the  real  significance  of  sacrifice 
in  relation  to  God  was.  Speaking  for  Jehovah, 
Amos  asks  in  chapter  5 :  25,  "  Did  ye  bring  unto 
me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wilderness  forty 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        115 


years,  O  house  of  Israel?"  His  question,  which 
expects  a  negative  answer,  indicates  that  he  did 
not  consider  sacrifice  an  indispensable  element  of 
religious  service. 

His  view  was  probably  shared  by  all  the  prophets 
that  succeeded  him,  though  some  of  them  appear 
to  attach  even  less  importance  than  he  attached 
to  offerings.  So  far  as  is  now  known,  neither  he 
nor  any  of  his  successors  attempted  to  abolish  sac- 
rifices, but  thenceforward  the  prophets  sought 
to  put  and  keep  them  in  their  proper  place,  by 
associating  them  with  the  practice  of  righteous- 
ness in  heart  and  life.*  All  who  thought  the 
people  sufficiently  developed  to  do  without  this 
symbol  inveighed  unceasingly  against  sacrifice  as 
such  and  laid  supreme  stress  on  the  moral  demands 
of  God. 

What  the  predominant  motive  of  primitive  man 
may  have  been  in  determining  the  institution  is 
quite  uncertain.  Like  most  other  motives,  it  would, 
doubtless,  be  a  complex  one.  The  first  sacrifices 
mentioned  in  the  Bible  are  thank  offerings  in  the 
form  of  firstfruits  and  of  firstlings.  These  are 
described  as  natural  expressions  of  thankfulness 
for  the  productiveness  of  the  soil  and  the  fecundity 

'  Smend  maintains  that  the  prophets  repudiated  sacrifices  al- 
together, but  Scripture  warrants  us  only  in  holding  that  they 
relegated  ritual  to  a  subordinate  position.  See  "  Lehrbuch 
der  Alt.  Test.  Religionsgeschichte,"  p.  167,  Bennett,  p.  11. 


■I  I , 

I 

-It 


U. 

s 


I'ii! 


5     . 
I 

i  ,< 


!       i 


I       1 


ii6 


AT  ONEMENT 


of  the  flock.  In  each  case  the  offering  is  repre- 
sented as  an  appropriate  acknowledgment  to  God 
for  his  blessing,  arising  out  of  a  spontaneous  feel- 
ing of  gratitude. 

But,  though  that  has  been  a  controlling  motive 
in  civilized  times,  it  is  not  likely  to  have  operated 
so  powerfully  in  uncivilized  times.  In  the  earlier 
ages,  and  long  subsequently,  sacrifices  were  prob- 
ably regarded  as  gif;s  by  which  men  sought  to 
procure  the  favour  or  appease  the  anger  of  the 
Deity.  At  one  time  this  opinion  was  held  by  the 
Hebrews  in  common  with  the  heathen.  As  Schultz 
says,  "  Ancient  Israel,  like  other  nations  of  antiq- 
uity, believed  that  it  could  avert  God's  anger  by 
sacrifices  and  feasts."  * 

Up  to  the  period  of  the  Captivity,  apparently,  a 
mistaken  notion  prevailed  among  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple respecting  the  Godward  significance  of  sacri- 
fice. Most  of  them,  no  doubt,  imagined  that  Jeho- 
vah might  be  made  propitious  by  costly  rites  and 
offerings.  It  is  questionable,  however,  if  any  Old 
Testament  teacher  gave  any  countenance  to  so 
crude  a  notion.  Each  knew  that  human  favour 
might  be  purchased,  but  that  divine  favour  could 
not  be.  At  all  events  there  is  no  proof  that  any 
representative  teacher  believed  either  that  he  re- 
quired to  be  propitiated  or  that  he  could  be  made 
propitious  by  anything  man  might  do. 

» "  Old  Testament  Theology,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  87. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        117 

On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  shown,  the  leaders 
of  the  nation  endeavoured  to  correct  the  popular 
misconception  that  offerings  possessed  a  value  in 
themselves.  They  emphasized  honesty  and  sin- 
cerity in  sacrifice,  and  taught  that  Jehovah  was 
pleased  with  righteous  sacrifices,  or  those  offered 
in  a  right  spirit;  but  they  declared  that  outward 
objects  were  worthless  to  him,  and  that  formal 
offer*  gs  were  false  offerings.  Such  oblations 
availed  nothing  for  man  and  signified  nothing  to 
God.  At  least,  they  had  no  significance  other  than 
that  of  being  an  abomination  to  him.  Instea;  of 
winning  his  favour,  they  only  incurred  his  dis- 
pleasure. 

No  matter  what  may  have  been  the  paramount 
motive  in  instituting  sacrifice,  much  superstition 
would  necessarily  be  associated  with  it.  When  we 
come  to  Biblical  times,  however,  the  sacrificial  rites 
of  the  Hebrews  present  a  marked  contrast  to  those 
of  the  heathen.  Among  the  latter,  sacrifices  were 
regarded  as  a  means  of  appeasing  the  divine  anger 
and  of  averting  the  divine  vengeance;  among  the 
former,  they  were  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  de- 
pendence and  an  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness. 
In  the  one  case,  they  were  thought  to  satisfy  an 
imaginary  want  in  God:  in  the  other  case,  they 
wer'i  known  to  express  a  sensible  need  in  man.  By 
the  Old  Testament  writers  material  offerings  were 
viewed,  not  as  gif<^s  whereby  men  rendered  the 


#h 


: '  -  i  ■ 


fi 


i 


i 


■  :^ 

I. 

1 

1 

ij 

'i.* 

:| 

ii8 


AT  ONEMENT 


Deity  propitious,  nor  as  payments  whereby  they 
purchased  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  nor  yet 
as  performances  whereby  they  fulfilled  their  re- 
ligious obligations,  but  rather  as  tokens  of  their  peni- 
tent faith  in  Jehovah  and  their  sincere  devotion  to 
his  service. 

To  the  writers  of  Scripture  sacrifices  had  only 
a   symbolical   significance.     To   them   they   were 
merely  symbolic  expressions  of  reverence  and  re- 
pentance, or  of  allegiance  and  love.    Though  many 
of  the  outer  forms  of  Hebrew  and  heathen  worship 
were  very  similar,  the  ceremonies  of  Judaism  were 
fundamentally  different  from  those  of  heathenism. 
The  usages  of  the  heathen  were  believed  to  effect 
a  material  union  with  their  deities  by  a  sort  of 
magical  process,  but  not  a  vestige  of  magic  is  to 
be  found  in  any  of  the  ceremonial  observances  of 
Judaism.     And  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
Mosaism,  which  antedates  Judaism  by  many  centu- 
ries. 

On  this  point  K.  J.  Nitzsch  has  made  some  excel- 
lent remarks.  In  a  series  of  academic  lectures,  pub- 
lished in  1858,  he  expresses  himself  thus:  "  There 
is  not  a  single  usage  in  the  institutions  of  Moses 
in  which  communion  with  God  is  effected  in  a 
magical  way  through  the  senses,  but  all  have  a 
purely  symbolical  nature.  This  holds  good 
of  purifications,  of  offerings,  of  sacred  build- 
ings   and    their    construction;    it    holds    good  of 


V'iM^- 


U 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        119 

every  utensil  of  the  temple  and  of  every 
action."  * 

The  preceding  paragraph  calls  for  a  brief  expla- 
nation. The  Mosaic  ritual  is  not  thought  to  have 
been  a  system  of  conscious  sj-mbol,  in  the  sense 
that  the  various  acts  of  worship  were  merely  signs 
of  internal  things.  That  is  to  say,  according  to 
that  ritual,  sacrifice  does  not  s\Tnbolize  a  devotion 
to  God  which  takes  place  independently  of  the  act 
of  the  offerer,  but  by  his  personal  act  the  devotion 
of  the  offerer  is  symbolized.  At  this  stage  of  reve- 
lation, therefore,  sacrifice  w^as  not  a  mere  svTnbc)!; 
it  was  rather,  to  speak  with  Oehler,  "  an  embodied 
prayer."  * 

By  the  great  prophets  and  psalmists,  however, 
value  is  attached  to  sacrifice  only  so  far  as  it  is 
accompanied  with  an  inward  feeling  of  piety.  To 
speak  again  with  Oehler :  "  Mosaism  says,  piety 
approves  itself  in  sacrifice;  prophecy  says,  sac- 
rifice is  approved  only  by  piety."  "  In  all  developed 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifice  is  represented 
as  something  relatively  unimportant,  and  in  no 
part  is  it  represented  as  having  any  effect  whate\'er 
on  the  mind  of  God,  in  the  sense  of  changing  his 
'".titude.     In  these  portions  of  Scriplure,  it  is  re- 

'Quoted  from  Oehler's  "Old  Testament  Theology,"  Am. 
ed.,  p.  247,  note  2. 
'^Ibtd..  p.  247. 
*Itnd.,  p.  247,  note  3. 


lit 

m 

t 

^  ■ 


]■- 


120 


AT  ONEMENT 


if 


garded  simply  as  the  outward  expression  of  an 
inward  spirit— an  inward  atonement,  one  might 
say. 

Coming  now  to  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  find 
that  the  evangelists  and  apostles  emphasize  the  very 
phase  of  sacrifice  which  the  prophets  and  psalmists 
emphasized.  They  saw  that  oblations  were  only 
symbolic  expressions  of  an  inward  atonement,  or 
a  right  state  of  heart  towards  Jehovah.  In  Mat- 
thew 9:  13  and  12:7,  the  only  places  in  which  our 
Lord  is  said  to  have  mentioned  the  institution,  he 
quotes  and  applies  the  language  of  Hosea  6:6,  "  I 
desire  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice."  In  each  place  he 
reminds  his  auditors  of  the  great  principle  of 
prophecy,  that  sacrifice  is  approved  only  by  piety. 
But,  in  its  highest  signification,  piety  is  a  right  state 
of  heart  towards  God,  and  a  right  state  of  heart 
towards  him  implies  a  benevolent  disposition  of 
soul  towards  all  his  creatures. 

Only  one  technical  religious  offering  is  enjoined 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  is  mentioned  form- 
ally in  Hebrews  13:15.  There  the  writer  urges  us 
to  offer  through  Christ  "a  sacrifice  of  praise  to 
God  continually."  Such  a  sacrifice  was  properly 
a  confession  of  grateful  acknowledgment  for  divine 
favour;  and,  lest  any  should  suppose  that  he  re- 
ferred to  ritual  offerings,  he  adds,  by  way  of  expla- 
nation. '•  the  fruit  of  lips  which  make  confession 
to  his  name."    In  harmony  with  Psalm  50:  14,  it 


L 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        121 


is  spiritual,  not  material,  sacrifices  that  are  meant. 
Praise  accompanied  with  prayer  is  the  nature  of 
the  thanksgiving  which  the  author  of  Psalm  51 :  17 
pronounced  to  be  acceptable  to  God.  The  teaching 
of  the  epistle  is  akin  to  that  of  Micah  6 : 6-8. 

Similar  offerings,  though  not  technically  so 
designated,  are  enjoined  in  I.  Peter  2:5,  where  the 
apostle  speaks  of  Christians  as  a  priesthood,  con- 
secrated for  the  offering  of  '*  spiritual  sacrifices  " 
that  should  be  acceptable  to  God  through  Jesus 
Christ.  As  in  the  previous  passage,  these  sacri- 
fices of  prayer  and  praise  would  be  acceptable  to 
God  when  offered  to  him  through  Christ,  that  is, 
with  his  purpose  and  spirit,  not  through  the  merits 
of  his  work.  Coming  with  that  spirit,  every  true 
worshipper  has  immediate  access  to  God.  This 
passage  proves  that  m  the  Christian  Church  there 
is  no  need  of  a  priestly  order,  or  an  official  priest- 
hood, because  there  is  no  sense  in  which  one  man 
is  a  priest  other  than  that  in  which  all  men  are 
priests. 

When  it  is  asserted,  therefore,  that  our  prayers 
and  praises  are  so  imperfect  that  they  can  be  accept- 
able only  through  Christ  as  our  intercessor,  the  as- 
sertion is  misleading,  and  rests  on  a  misconception. 
The  intercession  mentioned  in  Hebrews  7 :  25  does 
not  imply  any  supplication  for  us  on  his  part.  The 
idea  there  is  that  of  his  ever  living  in  the  presence 
of  God  so  as  to  interpose  or  operate  on  our  Ijehalf, 


■, 


i 


..a 


s:  ^1 


••i 


122 


AT  ONEMENT 


but  that  interposition  or  operation  is  the  prolonged 
energy  of  his  work  and  the  perpetual  activity  of 
his  spirit.  What  he  does  in  that  way  has  no  merit 
for  us,  and  no  saving  value  to  us,  apart  from  our 
moral  oneness  with  him.  A  proper  understanding 
of  the  verse  should  keep  us  from  supposing  that 
we  are  forgiven  in  virtue  of  his  sacrifice,  or  that 
in  virtue  of  his  intercession  we  are  admitted  to 
favour  and  grace.  As  the  great  high  priest,  he  is 
our  spiritual  representative,  but  we  also  are  true 
priests  when  we  are  one  with  him  in  spirit  and  pur- 
pose. 

Romans  12:1  contains  a  statement  that  deserves 
to  be  quoted  in  this  connection.  There,  in  contrast 
to  the  dead  victims  offered  under  the  law,  we  are 
exhorted  to  present  our  bodies  a  living  sacrifice, 
holy  and  "  acceptable  to  God."  And  it  is  significant 
that,  in  chapter  15 :  16,  the  apostle  represents  his 
office  with  respect  to  the  Gentiles  as  that  of  a  priest, 
in  the  sense  of  administering  to  them  the  gospel 
of  God,  in  order  to  bring  them  by  the  influence  of 
his  Spirit  to  offer  themselves  a  living  sacrifice  to 
him. 

The  language  of  each  passage  shows  that,  when 
we  give  ourselves  to  him  with  a  pure  spirit  and 
a  consecrated  purpose,  our  offerings  will  be  favour- 
ably received.  And  God  would  not  be  a  perfect 
Father,  were  that  not  the  case.  These  passages 
should  have  led  men  to  see  that  our  imperfections 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        123 


do  not  prevent  us  from  offering  a  sacrifice  worthy 
of  acceptance,  and  should  have  kept  them  from 
saying  that  no  human  offering  could  be  received 
with  favour,  but  for  the  sinless  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
His  sacrifice  was  representative,  first,  in  that  it  was 
on  behalf  of  all  men;  and,  secondly,  in  that  it 
teaches  us  what  ours  should  be;  b'  *  he  does  nothing 
for  us  that  we  can  do  for  ourselves  by  the  aid  of 
the  Divine  Spirit. 

As  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  were  only  sym- 
bols in  relation  to  God,  so  they  were  only  types  in 
reference  to  Christ.  But,  though  in  a  certain  sense 
they  may  be  considered  types,  we  must  not  over- 
look the  fact  that  they  were  involuntary  offerings  of 
material  objects,  whereas  his  was  a  conscious 
voluntary  offering  of  himself.  That  difference 
should  always  h>^  borne  in  mind.  And,  while  there 
is  no  definite  form  of  teaching  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment with  respect  to  his  sacrifice,  when  the  terms 
employed  are  properly  explained  there  is  a  pretty 
general  agreement  among  the  writers  in  regard  to 
its  reason  or  object.  He  offered  himself  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  God  for  sake  of  benefiting 
the  children  of  men. 

Since  his  was  a  voluntary  self -offering,  made  in 
devotion  to  the  voice  of  duty,  its  significance  was 
not  perceived  by  his  followers  while  he  was  still 
present  with  them  in  the  flesh.  This  is  proved 
by  an  assertion  in  Luke  18:34.    At  the  close  of 


1 

■ 

3 

■ 

1 

T 

1 

8 

h 

1 

if 
1 1 

t. 

1 

-l1  ?■ 


124 


AT  ONEMENT 


the  third  recorded  announcement  of  the  suffering 
and  death  of  Jesus,  referring  to  the  twelve  disci- 
ples, the  evangelist  says,  "  They  understood  none 
of  these  things."  Mark  9:32  also  asserts  that 
they  understood  not  what  he  meant  when  Jesus 
foreshadowed  his  death  to  them  for  the  second 
time.  Not  till  after  his  ascension  did  they  compre- 
hend his  meaning,  nor  could  they  in  the  circum- 
stances have  been  expected  to  comprehend  it.  That 
would  require  time. 

Apart  from  those  relating  to  his  death  and  suf- 
fering, the  sacrificial  descriptions  of  his  work  are 
comparatively  few.  Some  of  them,  however,  are 
suggestive.  In  I.  Corinthians  5 : 6-8,  discussing  the 
danger  of  a  single  case  of  immorality  in  a  religious 
conjp-egation,  the  apostle  urges  the  Church  at  Cor- 
inth to  purge  itself  from  an  evil-doer  on  the 
ground  that  Christ,  our  paschal  lamb,  has  been 
"  sacrificed."  *  Here  Paul  refers  to  the  interest 
which  Christians  should  have  in  the  great  sacrifice 
typified  in  the  lamb  of  the  Passover,  the  feast  other- 
wise known  as  that  of  unleavened  bread.  Regard- 
ing leaven  as  a  symbol  of  corruption,  he  wishes  to 
impress  the  lesson  of  moral  purity.  As  the  Hebrew 
people  were  to  remove  all  leaven  before  partaking 

*The  Passover  was  instituted  in  Egypt  before  the  Levitical 
system  was  established,  and,  though  it  is  called  a  sacrifice  in 
Exodus  12 :  27  and  Deuteronomy  16 : 2,  it  was  not  a  sin  offer- 
ing, much  less  an  expiatory  sacrifice. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        125 

of  the  victim,  so  those  who  profess  to  be  a  new, 
regenerate  society  are  exhorted  to  remove  from 
them  all  sin.  They  are  to  rid  themselves  of  every 
particle  of  impurity.  The  community  is  to  be 
purged  through  participation  in  Christ,  that  is,  by 
feeding  on  him  in  their  hearts. 

Speaking  of  the  uniqueness  of  his  offering,  He- 
brews 9:26  says  that  he  was  "manifested  to  put 
away  sin  by  the  sacrince  of  himself  ";  more  exactly, 
for  the  abolition  of  sin,  or  to  the  end  that  it  might 
be  abolished.  After  what  has  been  said  in  previous 
chapters,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  dwell  on  this 
clause.  As  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  purification 
is  to  be  accomplished  through  participation  in 
Christ.  The  one  who  sins  must  put  his  own  sin 
away  by  forsaking  it  and  turning  to  God.  Christ 
cannot  abolish  sin  in  us,  unless  we  die  with  him  to 
sin.  In  other  words,  he  can  put  away  sin  from  us 
only  by  his  life  coming  into  us  and  his  spirit  taking 
possession  of  us.  It  was  for  this  purpose  that  he 
gave  himself  on  our  behalf,  and  it  is  in  this  manner 
that  he  redeems  us  from  iniquity,  and  purifies  for 
himself  a  people  periliarly  his  own  and  eagerly 
desirous  of  doing  good,  to  paraphrase  the  language 
of  Titus  2 :  14. 

It  should  here  be  explained  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  effects  in  reality  what  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats  effected  only  in  figure.  Their  blood  was 
powerless  to  remove  sins,  as  Hebrews  10 : 4  states. 


126 


AT  ONEMENT 


^^1- 


because  it  was  only  a  symbol,  whereas  his  blood 
secures  complete  and  permanent  removal  of  sin, 
because  it  represents  his  love  to  us  and  his  life 
in  us.  As  dumb  victims,  they  could  not  secure 
peace  to  the  worshipper  with  respect  to  the  con 
science,  but  as  the  life-giving  spirit,  he  communi- 
cates life  and  power  to  all  in  union  with  him. 

Then  in  John  i :  29  he  is  described  as  "  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
As  the  appellation,  "  Lamb  of  God,"  has  its  origin 
in  Isaiah  53:7,  where  the  godly  exiles  are  com- 
pared to  an  uncomplaining  lamb,  and  as  they  are 
said  in  that  chapter  to  have  borne  the  iniquities  of 
the  nation  in  the  sense  of  beari.ig  the  consequences 
of  them,  the  verb  in  this  verse  is  rendered  in  the 
margin  of  the  New  Revision  "  beareth,"  a  meaniner 
which  the  Hebrew  equivalent  justifies.  But,  since 
the  Septuagint  employs  there  another  word,  and 
does  not  employ  the  word  used  here  in  the  sense 
of  bearing  sins,  the  verb  may  be  rightly  translated 
takes  away  or  removes.  With  this  translation 
agrees  that  of  L  John  3:5,  "  He  was  manifested 
to  take  away  sins,"  where  the  same  verb  is  used 
and  the  same  thought  is  expressed.  Hence,  in 
common  with  the  other  New  Testament  writers,  the 
apostle,  the  evangelist,  and  the  author  of  Hebrews 
teach  us  that  Christ  removes  the  sins  of  men  by 
imbuing  them  with  his  spirit  and  inspiring  them 
with  his  life. 


I 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        127 

When,  therefore,  the  author  of  Hebrews  9 :  22 
says  that,  *'  apart  from  shedding  of  blood,  there  is 
no  remission,"  he  states  in  sacrificial  phraseology  a 
fact  based  on  Levitical  law,  the  spiritual  significance 
of  which  he  is  there  exhibiting.  This  Levitical  law 
was  then  in  force  among  the  Jews,  and  his  state- 
ment expresses  a  historic  fact,  but  not  a  divine 
necessity.  According  to  Biblical  symbolism,  the 
blood  represents  the  life,  and  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  implied  that  the  life  was  thenceforth  to 
be  consecrated  to  Jehovah.  It  was  not  the  death 
and  suflfering  of  the  guiltless  victim  that  procured 
remission  for  Israel,  nor  is  it  the  death  and 
suffering  of  the  innocent  Christ  that  procures 
it  for  us,  but  remission  is  said  to  be  effected  by  the 
consecration  of  that  which  the  blood  represents, 
namely,  the  life  or  soul.  Tlie  Old  Testament 
writers,  no  less  than  the  New,  declare  that 
forgiveness  is  to  be  obtained  by  the  confession 
of  our  sin,  and  the  consecration  of  our  life  to 
God. 

Though  the  principle  of  atonement  by  the  blood 
of  sacrifice  is  admittedly  obscure  in  the  Bible,  the 
language  of  Leviticus  17: 11  suggests  the  explana- 
tion just  supplied.  From  the  middle  clause  of  the 
verse,  which  describes  the  blood  as  given  to  make 
atonement  for  the  people's  souls  (literally,  to  be  a 
covering  for  them),  some  have  inferred  that  when 
the  blood  was  offered  to  God,  it  gave  the  sacrifice 


128 


AT  ONEMENT 


an  expiatory  character;  but  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est hint  of  expiation  in  that  verse,  nor  in  any  other 
part  of  the  book.  Throughout  the  Scriptures  it  is 
God  who  is  said  to  cover  sins,  or  make  atonement 
for  them,  and  that,  too,  of  his  own  accord.  And 
the  last  clause  of  the  verse  tells  us  distinctly  that 
the  blood  covers  or  atones  by  reason  of  the  life, 
so  that  in  the  mind  of  the  Levitical  writer  it  could 
have  had  only  a  symbolic  significance.* 

Furthermore,  when  people  say  that  there  is  no 
coming  to  God  without  an  offering  of  some  kind, 
or  that  without  an  offering  of  some  kind  no  one 
can  be  accepted  of  him,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  with 
Peter,  "  In  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and 
workcth  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  him."  The 
offering  of  the  soul  (jr  the  homage  of  the  heart,  is 
all  he  wants,  or  ever  wanteil,  of  a  human  being. 
That  is  all  any  one  could  give  him,  as  well  as  all  he 
could  possibly  receive;  and  in  giving  that  we  give 
only  what  belongs  to  him,  and  what  was  always  his. 
The  Biblical  writers  rccogni;:e  that  sorrow  for  sin 
and  amendment  of  life  are  the  sole  conditions  of 
divine  acceptance;  but  Christ  and  the  apostles  show 
us  that  to  continue  in  his  favour  we  must  live  in 
harmony  with  God.  so  far  as  we  know  him  and 
understand  his  will. 

Early  in  this  chapter  it  was  said  that  sacrifice  is 

•Compare  Schultz's  "Old  Testament  Theology,"  V' '    I., 
p.  385. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        129 


the  rendering  sac.ed  .  .-'^jmething  to  the  Deity. 
Hence  anything  gi  xn  to  hsn!  h)  a  right  spirit  may 
be  Biblically  called  .i  '  icrificc  fn  its  highest  mean- 
ing, as  in  its  literal  .igiiv'ication,  it  is  merely  an 
expression  of  love  to  God.  Ihroughout  the  Bible 
it  is  consistently  viewed  as  the  outward  expression 
of  an  inward  spirit,  that  is,  as  symbolizing  the  con- 
secration of  the  life  and  the  devotion  of  the  heart 
to  him.  Its  ritual  value  was  known  to  be  disci- 
plinary, and  its  ethical  side  was  seen  to  be  its 
all-important  side.  So  atonement  in  sacrifice  is 
figurative.  God  desires  not  to  see  blood  flow 
freely,  but  to  sec  life  lived  nobly  and  usefully. 
It  is  the  consecration  of  our  lives  to  him  that  he 
requires. 

Rightly,  therefore,  do  we  regard  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  as  the  spiritual  consummation  and  fulfilment 
of  the  sacrificial  system  of  the  Old  Testament,  be- 
cause it  was  pre-eminently  one  of  consecration  and 
devotion.  Voluntary  obedience  to  the  will  of  his 
Father  is  the  reason  given  in  the  Synoptic  gospels 
for  his  self-offering,  and  a  similar  reason  is  given 
in  the  tpistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Then  in  John  13:15 
and  I.  Peter  2:21  an  additional  reason  is  assigned 
In  the  gospel  he  is  said  to  have  serveil,  and  in  the 
epistle  he  is  said  to  have  suffered,  as  an  example 
for  us;  so  that  his  offering  was,  first,  a  proof  of  his 
perfect  obedience,  and,  secondly,  a  pattern  of  what 
ours  should  be. 


rca 


I30 


AT  ONEMENT 


Hi   i 


#:4 


h  -'ii 


Jesus  has  left  us  an  example  that  we  should  fol- 
low in  his  steps.  He  served  others  self -deny  ingly 
that  his  disciples  might  do  the  same;  he  suffered 
patient'  for  well-doing  that  they  might  be  ready 
to  suffer  in  a  similar  manner  for  doing  well;  and 
he  offered  himself  on  behalf  of  all  that  all  might 
possess  and  exhibit  his  spirit  of  self-sacrifice.  It  is 
on  that  ground  we  are  exhorted  in  Ephesians  5 : 2 
to  walk  in  love  with  one  another,  manifesting  a 
benevolence  resembling  that  which  led  to  him  to 
offer  himself  on  our  behalf. 

It  is  also  on  that  ground  that  the  author  of  He- 
brews, after  showing  the  spiritual  fulfilment  of 
Old  Testament  types  in  Christ  and  Christianity, 
counsels  his  readers  to  appreciate  the  privileges  of 
the  Gospel,  and  prove  their  appreciation  of  it  by 
loyalty  to  its  requirements.  In  chapter  13:  11-16, 
pursuing  the  analogy  suggested  in  the  tenth  verse 
between  the  involuntary  offerings  of  the  law  and 
the  voluntary  self-offering  of  our  Lord,  he  reminds 
them  of  the  duty  of  presenting  an  offering  similar 
to  his.  As  Jesus  suffered  outside  the  gate  to  sanc- 
tify the  people  by  his  own  blood,  that  is,  to  purify 
his  followers  through  participation  in  his  spirit,  so, 
in  a  figurative  sense,  we  are  to  go  forth  to  him  out- 
side the  camp  prepared,  if  need  be,  to  bear  reproach 
for  him. 

Then  he  adds  significantly,  "Through  him  let 
us  offer  up  a  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continu- 


f!^  ".i\ 


ATONEMENT  IN  SACRIFICE        131 

ally,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  lips  which  make  confession 
to  his  name."  But  praise  with  our  lips  is  not 
enough;  we  must  praise  God  also  with  our  lives. 
Hence,  in  the  following  verse,  the  author  exhorts 
us  to  be  benevolent  and  share  our  benefits  with 
others;  because  with  such  sacrifices,  and  such  sacri- 
fices only,  is  God  well-pleased.  In  that  lesson 
the  practical  teaching  of  the  epistle  culminates, 
its  chief  object  being  to  inculcate  that  great 
truth. 

The  Church  of  which  Christ  is  the  head  is  to 
filled  with  his  spirit;  the  temple  of  which  he  is  the 
foundation  is  to  be  built  of  living,  consecrated  men. 
To  adapt  the  words  of  I.  Peter  2 : 5-9,  as  living 
stones,  we  are  to  form  ourselves  into  a  spiritual 
house,  to  be  a  holy  company  of  priests  for  the  offer- 
ing of  spiritual  sacrifices,  the  end  of  our  priesthood 
being  to  show  forth  the  excellencies  of  him  who 
called  us  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light. 
The  atoning  value  of  such  sacrifices,  and,  indeed, 
of  all  self-sacrifice,  is  known  only  to  God.  It 
is  by  the  former  that  we  live,  and  by  both  the 
former  and  the  latter  that  we  help  others  to 
live. 

Thus  an  ancient  rite  was  refined  and  purified 
from  age  to  age  till,  in  the  teaching  and  practice  of 
Jesus,  sacrifice  became  absorbed  in  service  and  serv- 
ice lost  in  love.  Loving  obedience  to  God  and 
beneficent  activity  for  man  are  what  the  institu- 


132 


AT  ONEMENT 


tion  was  designed  to  signify;  and,  so  far  as  the 
Deity  is  concerned,  that  is  all  it  was  ever  in- 
tended to  express.  To  love  him  so  and  serve 
our  fellows  so  is  to  practise  his  gospel  and  obey 
his  law. 


VI 
ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


AS  a  second  subordinate  element,  we  have  next 
to  consider  the  relation  of  death  to  atone- 
''  nient.  Were  it  not  for  the  prominence  given 
to  the  death  of  Christ  in  Scripture  and  the  empha- 
sis placed  upon  it  in  theology,  it  would  not  be  neces- 
sary to  discuss  this  element  at  much  length.  But, 
owing  to  the  importance  attached  to  it  by  both  the 
apostles  and  the  theologians,  a  whole  chapter  must 
be  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  it. 

There  is  always  something  impressive  about  the 
death  of  a  godly  man.  It  has  a  sanctifying  effect 
on  the  community  in  which  he  lived,  and  exerts 
a  consecrative  influence  on  those  with  whom  he  was 
acquainted.  The  wider  the  circle  of  his  acquaint- 
ance, the  wider  the  extent  of  that  influence.  Hence 
a  man  conspicuous  for  great  piety  speaks  more 
strongly  after  death  than  during  life.  His  name 
becomes  more  generally  known,  and  the  fragrance 
of  his  character  more  extensively  diffused. 

The  reach  of  posthumous  influence  depends  not 
simply  on  the  depth  of  the  piety,  but  on  the  strength 
of  the  personality,  or  its  power  to  project  itself 

133 


134 


AT  ONEMENT 


n 


:.  1-, 


into  the  future.  Because  of  his  unique  personality, 
therefore,  we  should  expect  that  an  exceptional  in- 
fluence would  proceed  from  the  death  of  Jesus,  the 
mediator  of  a  new  covenant  and  the  perfect  revealer 
of  God.  And  such,  we  know  from  history  as  well 
as:  experience,  has  been  the  case.  All  who  have  par- 
taken of  his  spirit  can  bear  witness  to  that  fact. 

But,  while  we  know  that  there  was  something 
exceptional  in  the  influence  of  his  death,  we  must 
seek  to  ascertain  just  what  it  was,  and  just  what 
the  New  Testament  writers  teach  it  was;  for  men 
have  believed  his  death  to  have  a  kind  of  signifi- 
cance which  the  gospels  and  epistles  do  not  war- 
rant. A  value  has  been  given  to  his  sufferings  that 
is  out  of  all  proportion  to  their  importance,  but 
a  value  has  been  given  to  his  death  that  is  still  more 
disproportionate.  These  false  estimates  are  due 
partly  to  a  wrong  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and 
partly  to  a  wrong  conception  of  sacrifice. 

Death  is  nothing  in  itself.  It  is  simply  the  cessa- 
tion of  physical  life.  The  last  breath  means  no 
more  than  the  last  but  one,  nor  does  the  last  but 
one  mean  any  more  than  the  one  before  it.  The 
death  of  a  good  man  is  merely  the  culmination  of 
his  life,  or  the  culminating  expression  of  the  spirit 
of  his  life.  So  the  death  of  Jesus  posse :sed  no 
particular  significance  in  itself.  Apart  from  his 
life,  his  death  was  nothing;  it  was  of  value  only  in 
connection  with  his  life.    And,  though  consecrative 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


135 


in  its  influence,  it  had  no  saving  efficacy.  It  ex- 
pressed the  dominant  spirit  of  his  Hfe;  but  that 
was  all  it  could  express,  and  all  the  Scriptures  claim 
it  did  expre£j. 

There  was  no  more  virtue,  therefore,  in  the  death 
than  in  the  life  of  Christ;  and  there  was  no  virtue 
whatever  in  the  death  alone.  Indeed,  his  life  and 
teaching  are  the  things  of  paramount  importance. 
In  a  certain  sense,  one  might  say  that  his  life  was 
his  teaching,  for  he  taught  as  truly  by  his  life  as 
by  his  language.  A  life  like  his  was  as  much  better 
than  teaching  as  example  is  better  than  precept. 
He  gave  himself  for  the  benefit  of  the  world,  but 
he  did  not  give  the  whole  of  himself  till  he  had 
expended  his  entire  energy  and  uttered  his  expiring 
cry.  In  other  words,  he  did  not  give  the  whole 
of  himself  till  he  had  given  his  life.  Hence  his 
death  was  the  natural  consummation  of  his  life 
of  self-denial,  and  the  practical  demonstration  of 
his  absolute  devotion  to  the  service  of  humanity. 

Possessing  a  human  body,  Jesus  had  to  die.  Like 
that  of  every  other  person,  it  was  subject  to  the 
law  of  death.  But  his  death  at  the  time  that  it 
happened  was  purely  voluntary.  He  might,  doubt- 
less, have  escaped  from  his  enemies  again,  as  he 
had  escaped  from  them  before;  but  the  hour  had 
arrived  when  he  felt  obligated  to  yield  to  the  cir- 
cumstances. He  was  obligated,  not  necessitated, 
because  his  yielding  was  a  matter  of  moral  obliga- 


Hl 


( I 


136 


AT  ONEMENT 


ri 


i 

1 


■1 


■ft 
"f 


tion.  An  occasion  had  arisen  when  he  felt  con- 
strained to  surrender  himself,  otherwise  he  might 
have  prosecuted  his  work  for  many  more  years. 
Not  to  have  yielded  then,  however,  would  have 
been  an  act  of  dereliction  and  a  serious  evasion  of 
duty. 

That  his  death  at  that  time  was  only  morally 
compulsory  is  suggested  by  the  statement  in  Philip- 
pians  2:8,  "  Being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he 
humbled  himself,  becoming  obedient  even  unto 
death,  yea,  the  death  of  the  cross."  The  author  of 
this  statement  seems  clearly  to  imply  that,  as  one 
consecrated  to  the  service  of  humanity,  Jesus  was 
under  a  moral  obligation  to  submit  to  death,  even 
in  its  most  shameful  form,  for  the  cause  of  truth 
and  righteousness.  And  it  is  not  so  much  his  death 
in  itself,  as  his  readiness  to  die  in  the  discharge 
of  duty,  on  which  the  emphasis  is  placed,  or  on 
which  special  stress  is  laid. 

Moreover,  to  do  always  the  things  that  are  pleas- 
ing to  the  Father,  as  John  8 :  29  represents  Jesus 
as  saying  that  he  did,  his  whole  life  had  to  be  one 
of  obedience  to  the  Father's  will ;  and  the  crowning 
act  of  obedience  was  that  of  voluntary  submission 
to  death  on  a  cross.  But  that  death  was  subordi- 
nate to  the  dominant  aim  of  his  life,  being  merely 
incidental  to  the  completion  of  the  work  that  he 
was  given  to  do  on  the  earth. 

Matthew's  account  of  his  agony  in  the  garden 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


137 


shows  that  he  desired  to  live  and  continue  his  labour 
for  mankind.  It  was  not  dread  of  death,  nor  fear 
of  sulTering,  but  love  of  life  and  passion  for  service 
that  caused  the  struggle  in  Gethsemane.  He  had 
come,  however,  to  fulfil  a  certain  mission;  and, 
having  fulfilled  it,  he  was  dictated  by  a  sense  of 
duty  to  ac(iuiesce  in  the  Father's  will  by  relinquish- 
ing his  life.  The  expression  in  Matthew  26:39, 
"  Not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt,"  was  a  declaration 
of  acquiescence,  or  of  readiness  to  acquiesce.  He 
was  neither  a  passive  nor  an  unwilling  victim, 
therefore,  but  a  voluntary  self-ofiferer  of  his  own 
life. 

The  voluntariness  of  his  death  is  emphatically 
stated  in  John  10:  17,  18.  In  the  former  verse, 
Jesus  is  represented  as  saying  that  his  Father  loves 
him  because  he  lays  down  his  life;  and,  in  the  latter 
verse,  as  declaring  that  no  one  takes  it  from  him, 
but  that  he  lays  it  down  of  himself.  Then  he  adds, 
to  give  a  literal  rendering,  "  I  have  authority  to 
lay  it  down,  and  I  have  authority  to  take  it  again. 
This  is  the  injunction  I  have  received  from  my 
Father."  According  to  this  passage,  Jesus  died 
of  his  own  free  choice  in  response  to  a  conviction 
of  duty,  or  a  command  from  God,  and  in  so  doing 
elicited  the  Father's  love.  Had  he  not  acted  freely, 
there  would  have  been  no  moral  quality  in  his 
death,  nor  any  moral  value  in  what  he  did.  The 
offering  of  himself  was  thus  an  act  of  free-will. 


138 


AT  ONEMENT 


i 


1  i 


being  essential  to  the  work  of  deliverance  he  had 
undertaken  to  perform. 

But,  while  the  time  of  his  death  was  voluntary, 
the  manner  of  it  was  necessary.  He  was  crucified 
because  crucifixion  was  then  the  form  of  capital 
punishment  among  the  Romans.  This  mode  of 
execution  was  permitted  by  the  Roman  governor 
in  consequence  of  the  clamour  of  the  populace, 
Matthew  tells  us,  and  on  a  charge  of  sedition  against 
Caesar,  Luke  adds.  Had  he  been  put  to  death 
by  Jewish  law,  the  manner  would  have  been  by 
stoning,  as  in  the  case  of  Stephen;  and,  had  he 
been  executed  at  3  later  period  or  in  another  coun- 
try, he  might  have  been  condemned  to  die  in  some 
other  way.  Hence  his  death  was  owing  partly  to 
choice  and  partly  to  compulsion,  but  it  was  the 
voluntariness  of  his  self-offering  that  gave  it  a  moral 
character  and  clothed  it  with  peculiar  power. 

This  is  an  appropriate  place  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. Was  the  death  of  Christ  foreordained?  In 
reply  it  should  be  said  that  nothing  a  free  moral 
agent  does  is  unconditionally  ordained.  Speaking 
of  foreordination,  the  author  of  Romans  8:29 
says  that  God  foreordained  those  whom  he  fore- 
knew "  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son," 
which  means  that  he  foreordained  all  whom  he  fore- 
saw would  conform  to  the  conditions  of  salvation. 
Acting  in  accordance  with  his  purpose,  or  in  com- 
pliance with  his  wishes,  is  the  mark  of  those  who 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH  139 

are  foreknown  and  likewise  of  those  who  are  f -^re- 
ordained.  Foreordination  is  not  an  arbitrary,  but 
a  reasonable,  thing;  and  in  the  Bible  promise'  and 
condition  go  together,  being  always  tacitly,  if  not 
explicitly,  joined. 

Hence  the  answer  to  the  question  is  a  simple  one. 
Though  the  death  of  Christ  was  by  a  divine 
appointment,  it  was  not  by  an  arbitrary  appoint- 
ment. He  had  the  power  to  act  with  deliberation 
and  from  choice,  and  the  Scriptures  show  that  he 
exercised  both.  By  so  doing  he  not  only  elicited 
the  love  of  the  Father  and  kept  himself  in  his 
favour,  but  also  demonstrated  the  duty  of  voluntary 
obedience  and  established  the  law  of  voluntary 
self-sacrifice.  Many  other  men  have  died  for  their 
convictions  or  for  their  principles,  but  his  death 
was  a  perfect  expression  of  self-offering  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  divine  will;  and  neither  before  nor  since 
has  a  self-offering  been  so  consistent  or  so  complete. 
His  offering  of  himself  was  thus  unique. 

Jesus  seems  to  have  said  nothing  about  his  death 
till  towards  the  close  of  his  career,  and  then  he  did 
not  speak  of  it  as  having  any  atoning  effect.  As 
the  end  of  his  life  drew  near,  he  is  reported  in 
the  Synoptics  to  have  told  his  disciples  that  he 
must  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  undergo 
much  suffering,  and  be  condemned  and  put  to  death, 
and  afterwards  be  raised  up;  and  in  chapter  18: 31 
Luke  reports  him  as  saying  that  all  things  written 


I40 


AT  ONEMENT 


V  •    i 


!  i  > 


by  the  prophets  concerning  him  should  be  accom- 
plished. So  far,  therefore,  as  the  record  indi- 
cates, he  spoke  of  his  death  as  necessary  to  fulfil 
the  principles  of  prophecy  and  to  furnish  a  pledge 
of  resurrection;  and  the  chief  emphasis  is  placed 
by  each  Synoptist  on  his  being  raised  from  the  dead. 
This  fact  has  great  significance,  and  should  be 
carefully  kept  in  mind. 

Since  nothing  is  said  by  the  evangelists  about 
the  doctrine  of  atonement,  we  need  not  look  for 
anything  in  the  gospels  respecting  death  in  relation 
to  it.  In  the  epistles,  however,  the  references  to 
the  death  of  Christ  are  both  numerous  and  striking. 
So  numerous  and  striking  are  they,  indeed,  that 
most  theologians  have  laid  more  stress  on  his  death 
than  on  his  life.  Because  of  their  wrong  emphasis 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  has  been  seriously  dis- 
credited. By  an  increasingly  large  number  it  is 
being  either  rejected  or  disregarded,  and  many 
express  concerning  it  an  utter  disbelief.  Let  us, 
therefore,  ascertain  how  the  apostles  viewed  the 
death  of  Christ. 

The  first  passage  that  speaks  of  any  connection 
between  death  and  atonement  is  Romans  5:10, 
where  the  writer  says,  "  If,  while  we  were  enemies, 
we  were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of 
his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall  we 
be  saved  by  his  life."  Here  we  have  the  key  to 
the  apostolic  view  of  the  relation  of  death  to  atone- 


■:::}. 


P  I:. 


TONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


141 


ment.  The  preceding  nine  verses  are  so  important 
that  it  seems  best  to  reproduce  the  substance  of 
them.  Before  this  is  done,  however,  it  should  be 
stated  that,  when  Christ  is  said  to  have  died  "  for  " 
us,  the  preposition  in  Greek  signifies  on  account 
of,  on  behalf  of,  or  for  the  sake  of.  It  signifies 
also  for  the  benefit  of,  or  for  the  advantage  of. 

In  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,  the  author, 
including  himself,  refers  to  those  whom  God  has 
declared  righteous  as  feeling  at  peace  with  him, 
or  reconciled  to  him,  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
In  the  fifth  and  sixth  verses,  he  describes  the  love 
of  God  as  filling  their  hearts,  through  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  was  given  to  them,  seeing  that,  while 
they  were  weak,  Christ  died  in  due  season  on  behalf 
of  the  ungodly.  In  the  eighth  verse,  he  asserts 
that  God  commends  ir  makes  conspicuous,  his  love 
to  us  in  that,  while  we  were  still  sinners,  Christ 
died  on  our  behalf.  In  the  ninth  verse,  he  goes  on 
to  say  that,  being  now  declared  righteous  by  his 
blood,  more  surely  shall  we  be  saved  from  the  wrath 
of  God  through  him.  And,  finally,  in  the  tent^ 
verse,  he  adds,  "If,  while  we  were  enemies,  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of  his 
Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall  we  be  raved 
by  his  life." 

The  whole  scope  of  this  paragraph  is  to  demon- 
strate the  love  of  God  in  giving  us  Christ.  It  would 
have  been  a  proof  of  his  love  to  have  given  his 


142 


AT  ONEMENT 


* '. 


i!' 


1M 


Son  for  friends,  but  it  is  a  more  signal  proof  to 
give  him  for  enemies.  When  the  writer  says  that 
we  are  declared  righteous  "  by  his  blood,"  he  uses 
sacrificial  language  representatively,  because  the 
blood  of  Christ  represents  his  life,  that  is,  himself. 
This  is  shown  by  the  assertion  we  shall  be  saved 
from  the  wrath  of  God  "through  him,"  which 
means  that  we  shall  be  kept  from  the  guilt  and 
condemnation  of  sin  through  our  union  with  him. 
And  when  it  is  said  that  Christ  died  for  us,  or  on 
our  behalf,  the  emphasis  is  not  on  his  dying,  but 
on  his  giving  himself;  for  his  death  was  merely 
the  culmination  of  his  life,  or  the  consummating 
act  of  his  life  work. 

Therefore,  in  saying  that  while  we  were  enemies* 
we  were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of 
his  Son,  the  writer  means  that  we  were  reconciled 
to  him  through  Christ  himself;  for  he  adds  imme- 
diately, much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be 
saved  by  his  life.  That  is  the  same  as  though  he 
had  said,  if  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  recon- 
ciled by  what  Christ  had  done  during  the  days  of 
his  flesh,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall 
be  saved  by  what  he  is  now  doing  by  the  power  of 
his  spirit  and  the  inspiration  of  his  life.  The  mean- 
ing is  not  that  by  dying  Jesus  made  a  propitiation, 
so  that,  upon  believing,  we  are  declared  righteous 
in  virtue  of  such  propitiation.  That  is  a  gross  mis- 
conception, because  it  is  never  stated  in  Scripture 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


143 


that  Christ  made  a  propitiation  or  that  God  needs 
to  be  propitiated. 

As  we  u.ie  said  in  the  preceding  verse  to  be 
saved  from  the  wrath  of  God  through  Christ,  that  is 
through  our  union  with  him,  so  in  the  present 
verse  we  are  said  to  be  saved  by  his  life,  that  is, 
by  being  interested  in  it  and  inspired  by  it.  And 
that  is  just  what  was  shown  in  previous  chapters, 
namely,  that  God  reconciles  men  to  himself  through 
Christ.  When  speaking  of  reconciliation  through 
him,  it  matters  not  which  phrase  the  apostles  use — 
the  death  of  Christ,  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  the 
term  Christ  itself — they  mean  exactly  the  same 
thing.  It  is  by  our  being  united  to  Christ,  that  is, 
by  our  partaking  of  his  spirit  and  participating  in 
his  life,  that  we  are  saved  through  his  instrumen- 
tality. It  is  the  incoming  of  his  life  and  the 
indwelling  of  his  spirit  that  saves. 

On  the  same  principle  the  kindred  passage  in 
Colossians  i :  19-22  should  be  explained.  This 
group  of  verses  reads :  "It  was  the  good  pleasure 
of  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  the  fulness 
dwell;  and  through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto 
himself,  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of 
his  cross;  through  him,  I  say,  whether  things  upon 
the  earth  or  things  in  the  heavens.  And  you,  being 
in  time  past  alienated  and  enemies  in  your  mind 
m  your  evil  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled  in 
the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death,  to  present 


:! » 


144 


AT  ONEMENT 


I,  I 


r     i 


Ik' 


Mm 


rrr- 


you  holy  and  without  blemish  and  unreprovable 
before  him."  The  conception  of  reconciliation  in 
this  passage  is  similar  to  that  in  the  foregoing  one. 
Let  us  look  at  the  correspondence. 

It  is  God,  the  reader  will  observe,  who  is  here 
said  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself  through  Christ. 
Only  instrumentally  is  Christ  said  to  effect  the 
reconciliation,  for  God  is  everywhere  represented 
as  doing  it  through  him,  or  by  means  of  him.  The 
reader  will  also  observe  that  it  is  God  who  is  said 
to  reconcile  all  things  through  Christ,  "  having  made 
peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross";  so  that 
"through  Christ"  and  "through  the  blood  of 
his  cross  "  are  equivalent  expressions.  And  then 
God  is  also  said  to  have  reconciled  those  who 
have  been  alienated  and  estranged  from  him 
through  the  "death"  of  Christ;  so  that  Christ, 
his  cross,  his  blood,  his  death  stand  each  for 
the  same  thing,  namely,  Christ  himself.  The 
reconciliation  in  this  passage  extends  to  every- 
thing in  heaven  or  on  earth  that  is  capable  of 
being  brought  into  harmony  with  the  will  of  God, 
and  all  to  the  end  that  men  might  be  presented 
holy  and  without  blemish  and  unreprovable  before 
him. 

On  the  same  principle,  too,  we  should  explain 
Ephesians  2: 13-16:  "But  now  in  Christ  Jesus  ye 
that  once  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  in  the  blood 
of  Christ.     For  he  is  our  peace,  who  made  both 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


145 


one,  and  brake  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition, 
having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the 
law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances; 
that  he  might  create  in  himself  of  the  twain  one 
new  man,  so  making  peace;  and  might  reconcile 
them  both  in  one  body  unto  God  through  the  cross." 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  Christ  is  described  as  instru- 
mentally  reconciling  men  to  God.  But  concerning 
these  four  verses  some  additional  observations 
should  be  made. 

Those  then  in  Christ  Jesus  who  were  cnce  far 
off  from  God,  are  said  to  have  been  made  nigh  to 
him  in  "  the  blood  of  Christ."  In  this  passage 
"  Christ  Jesus  "  and  "  blood  of  Christ "  are  paral- 
lel expressions,  though  the  latter  may  be  viewed 
more  as  describing  the  manner  in  which  they  be- 
came related  to  Christ;  for  the  writer  means  that 
they  were  brought  near  to  God  through  that  which 
the  blood  represents,  not  in  virtue  of  the  blood 
itself.  Now  the  blood  represents  his  life  and  all 
that  his  life  signified,  so  that  their  changed  relation 
was  owing  to  their  vital  union  with  him  and  their 
conscious  fellowship  with  his  spirit.  In  this  way 
he  (and  the  pronoun  is  emphatic)  became  their 
peace,  or  their  mediator  of  peace,  not  by  assuming 
their  penal  and  legal  liabilities,  for  that  is  impossible 
in  religion,  but  by  manifesting  to  them  the  mind 
and  will  of  God,  and  by  inspiring  them  with  a  spirit 
of  obedience  and  devotion  to   him.     One   may 


;■  t 


146 


AT  ONEMENT 


If' 


assume  physical  and  financial  liabilities  for  another, 
but  moral  liabilities  cannot  be  assumed. 

By  uniting  men  to  him  he  becomes  the  mediator 
of  peace  for  nations,  as  well  as  individuals;  and 
the  author  of  the  epistle  shows  that  he  made  the 
two  great  divisions  of  mankind,  the  Jews  and  the 
Gentiles,  to  be  potentially  one  by  breaking  down 
the  barrier  that  separated  them,  namely,  the  cere- 
monial law  with  its  exacting  injunctions  and  its 
burdensome  ordinances.  Thus,  as  men  become 
united  to  Christ,  they  become  possessed  of  spiritual 
life  in  him;  and,  so  far  as  they  possess  spiritual 
life  in  him,  they  become  reconciled  to  one  another 
and  to  God.  Such  reconciliation  is  effected,  how- 
ever, not  by  his  death,  as  if  his  death  were  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  it,  but  by  spiritual  union  with  him; 
for  the  fifteenth  verse  declares  that  he  creates  in 
himself  of  the  twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace. 
It  is  the  possession  of  the  spirit  of  which  his  death 
is  the  proof,  not  the  effect  of  the  death  itself,  that 
destroys  the  enmity  both  between  man  and  man 
and  between  man  and  God,  though,  as  already  sug- 
gested, there  is  a  moral  influence  in  his  death. 

There  is  one  passage,  however,  which  asserts  that 
"  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures." This  assertion  occurs  in  I.  Corinthians 
15:3,  where  Paul  is  dealing  with  those  in  the 
Church  at  Corinth  who  had  doubts  about  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection.    The  assertion  forms  part 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


M7 


of  a  short  summary  of  Christian  beliefs,  hut  it  has 
no  reference  whatever  to  atonement.  It  is  a  simple 
statement  of  fact  respecting  the  death  of  Christ, 
which  leads  to  another  statement  of  fact  respecting 
his  resurrection.  The  apostles,  like  the  evangelists, 
regard  the  death  of  Christ  as  fulfilling  the  prin- 
ciples of  prophecy  atid  as  furnishing  a  pledge  of 
resurrection.  One  might  be  led  to  wonder  why 
they  Hi-ide  so  much  of  his  death,  did  one  not  notice 
that  it  is  consistently  connected  in  their  minds  with 
a  belief  in  his  resurrection.  They  viewed  the  cruci- 
fied Jesus  as  their  risen  and  ascended  Lord,  living 
in  the  presence  of  his  Father  and  dwelling  in  the 
hearts  of  his  followers.  To  them  his  death  and 
resurrection  go  together,  because  the  former  was 
a  pledge  of  the  latter.  It  was  the  influence  of  this 
twofold  belief  that  enabled  them  so  heroically  to 
overcome  the  world. 

When  Paul  asserts  that  Christ  died  "  '  r  "  our 
sins,  he  employs  the  preposition  which  sigr.»nes  be- 
cause of,  by  reason  of,  or  on  account  of.  Its  mean- 
ing is  demonstrated  by  a  couple  of  passages — ^the 
one  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  other  in  the 
Old.  In  Romans  5 : 6  Christ  is  said  to  have  "  died 
for  the  ungodly,"  that  is,  on  their  behalf  or  for 
their  benefit;  and  in  I.  Kings  16:  19  Zimri  is  said 
to  have  "  died  for  his  sins,"  that  is,  on  account 
of  his  sins  or  by  reason  of  them.  So,  accord- 
ing to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  Christ  died 


•il 


i' 


148 


AT  ONEMENT 


\ 


a 


r  -'l^ 


for  the  benefit  of  sinners  and  by  reason  of 
sins. 

In  neither  case,  however,  is  there  any  thought 
of  substitution,  because  his  death  was  not  in  our 
d,  but  for  our  benefit,  or  on  our  behalf.  No 
substitutionary  death,  even  if  such  a  thing  were 
possible,  could  save  a  man  from  sin  or  make  him 
morally  right  with  God.  In  each  case  the  idea  is 
that  of  giving  himself  for  our  sake  to  free  us  from 
sin  through  our  union  with  him.  This  statement 
is  substantiated  by  Galatians  i :  4,  where  it  is  said 
that  Christ  "  gave  himself  for  our  sins  (that  is,  on 
account  of  our  sins)  that  he  might  deliver  us  out 
of  this  present  evil  world,"  which  means  to  rescue 
us  from  the  guilt  and  bondage  of  sin. 

His  dying  for  sins  denotes  the  giving  of  himself 
on  account  of  sins,  and  that  denotes  the  giving  ol 
himself  on  behalf  of  sinners,  or  for  their  sake.  His 
self-offering  was  a  voluntary  devotion  of  himself 
throughout  his  whole  career,  in  order  to  deliver 
men  from  the  evil  that  is  in  them  and  around  them; 
for  he  was  as  really  giving  himself  for  men  during 
the  years  of  his  public  ministry  as  during  the  hours 
of  his  excruciating  agony.  He  was  always  losing 
his  life  for  others. 

But  his  devotion  of  himself  on  their  behalf  was 
of  no  vital  benefit  to  them  then,  apart  from  their 
interest  in  him,  nor  is  what  he  did  of  any  vital  bene- 
fit to  them  now,  apart  from  their  relation  to  him. 


ill 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


149 


It  is  only  by  our  personal  union  with  him  and  our 
conscious  possession  of  his  spirit  that  we  can  be 
delivered  from  the  evil  of  the  world,  either  that 
which  is  within  or  that  which  is  without.  His  death 
was  nothing  in  itself,  let  it  be  said  again,  but  his 
life  in  us  is  everything,  both  to  us  and  to  those 
about  us. 

Because  of  the  suffering  of  death,  Jesus  is  now 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  and  in  that  expe- 
rience he  tasted  death  on  behalf  of  every  man, 
Hebrews  2 : 9  tells  us.  Here  again  the  preposition 
shows  that  he  died  for  our  sake,  and  not  in  our 
stead.  Tt  was  not  in  our  place,  but  for  our  advan- 
tage tnat  those  blessed  feet  which  trod  the  plains 
of  Palestine  were  fastened  to  the  bitter  cross.  Be- 
cause he  thus  humbled  himself  on  our  behalf,  Philip- 
pians  2:9-11  also  tells  us,  God  has  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  that  is  above  all  other 
names,  with  the  design  that  every  one  should  wor- 
ship in  his  spirit,*  and  to  the  end  that  the  Father 
might  be  glorified  by  such  an  acknowledgment  of 
Christ  as  Lord. 

We  have  still  to  examine  those  passages  which 
speak  of  our  being  redeemed  by  the  "  blood  "  of 

'Because  of  his  voluntary  submission  even  to  death,  Jesus 
is  exalted  to  unique  honour  and  dignity  that  men  might  bow 
to  God  in  his  name,  that  is,  with  his  character  and  spirit,  not 
at  his  name,  as  if  to  render  bodily  obeisance  when  that  name 
is  uttered.  Here,  again  the  preposition  ir  is  rightly  rendered 
in  the  New  Revision. 


I   I 
I 


150 


AT  ONEMENT 


Christ,  or  of  our  being  bought  by  his  "  blood."    In 
all  such  instances  the  blood  is  not  the  literal  blood, 
but  the  life;  and  the  life  is  not  the  physical  life, 
but  the  spirit,  that  is,  the  spirit  which  took  Jesus 
to  the  cross,     '^he  blood  of  Christ  represents  his 
perfect  self-devotion  to  the  service  of  humanity. 
When  it  is  stated  in  I.  Peter  i :  19,  therefore,  that 
we  "  were  redeemed  "  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ  and  in  Ephesians  i :  7  that  we  "  have  redemp- 
tion" through  his  blood  and  in  Acts  20:28  that 
we  were  "  purchased  "  with  his  blood,  the  meaning 
is  not  that  he  gave  anything  to  God  for  us,  but 
that  he  gave  himself  on  our  behalf,  or  for  our  sake. 
Again,  when  u  is  said  in  I.  Corinthians  6 :  20  and 
7:23  that  we  were  "bought  with  a  price,"  it  is 
not  meant  that  anything  was  literally  paid  to  any 
one,  but  that  it  cost  Jesus  his  life  to  declare  unto 
us  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  that  he  might  draw 
us  into  complete  conformity  to  the  divine  will.    In 
the  same  way  we  should  explain  II.  Peter  2:1, 
which  refers  to  false  teachers  who  bring  swift 
destruction  on  themselves  by  denying  the  Lord 
"  that  bought  them." 

In  a  similar  way  should  be  explained  such  pas- 
sages as  Hebrews  9:  14  and  I.  John  i :  7  and  Reve- 
lation 1 : 5,  the  first  of  which  speaks  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  purging  or  cleansing  our  consciences 
from  dead  works,  the  second  of  which  speaks  of 
his  blood  as  cleansing  us  from  all  sin,  and  the  last 


I 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


151 


of  which  speaks  of  our  being  washed  or  loosed 
from  our  sins  by  his  blood.  In  these  passages  the 
blood  is  used  as  a  symbol  of  purification,  the  sacri- 
ficial practice  of  the  Old  Testament  being  figu- 
ratively transferred  to  the  Christian  sphere. 

As  the  sprinkled  blood  of  a  dumb  victim  repre- 
sented the  pure  life  of  a  guiltless  animal,  so  the 
shed  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus  represents  the  spot- 
less life  of  a  perfect  self-offerer;  and,  as  the  blood 
of  the  victim  showed  what  the  life  of  the  people 
ought  to  be,  so  the  blood  of  Ch'rist  shows  what 
our  life  ought  to  be,  namely,  one  of  self-dedication 
to  God.     Under  the  law,  almost  all  things  were 
purified  with  blood,  Hebrews  9 :  22  affirms,  because 
by  means  of  it  most  objects  were  consecrated  to 
God.    Thenceforth  they  belonged  to  him,  and  were 
to  be  regarded  as  his.     So  it  is  only  by  our  act 
of  personal  consecration  that  the  blood  is  said  to 
symbolize  purging,  or  cleansing,  or  washing,  or 
loosing  from  sin. 

Another  reference  to  the  cleansing  significance  of 
blood  occurs  in  Hebrews  10:  22,  where  the  language 
pictures  certain  persons  as  symbolically  purified  for 
the  service  of  God  by  having  their  "  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience."  We  have  an  allusion  there 
to  Leviticus  16: 14,  which  describes  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering  about  the  mercy-seat 
by  the  Hebrew  high  priest.  This  verse  connects 
in  thought  with  the  verse  we  have  just  considered. 


, 


I 


I 


M 


1. 

r 


i 


x- 


1 


j  1 


4 


^il 


152 


AT  ONEMENT 


where,  for  Christians,  sprinkling  with  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  implied,  and  also  with  I.  Peter  i :  2,  where 
the  expression,  "  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  appears  in  full.  The  idea  is  that,  by  the 
consecration  to  God  of  our  life  with  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  our  hearts  are  cleansed  from  a  sense  of 
condemnation,  or  a  feeling  of  guilt.  Too  much 
cannot  be  made  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  if  we  under- 
stand and  recognize  its  figurative  significance;  for 
his  blood  represents  something  that  affects  our 
relation  to  God,  and  not  something  that  affects 
God's  attitude  towards  us.  It  stands  for  the 
entrance  into  our  hearts  of  his  pure  spirit  and  his 
spotless  life. 

Now  we  may  see  the  meaning  of  the  encourage- 
ment given  in  Hebrews  10 :  19  to  enter  with  bold- 
ness into  the  holy  place  by  "  the  blood  of  Jesus," 
We  enter  the  sanctuary  with  confidence,  not  in 
virtue  of  his  blood,  but  with  the  spirit  which  his 
blood  represents.  The  new  and  living  way  which 
he  opened  and  consecrated  is  one  of  personal  holi- 
ness, for  entering  the  divine  presence  by  his  blood 
means  that  his  life  has  entered  us.  His  offering 
is  nothing  to  us  experimentally,  if  we  do  not  possess 
his  spirit.  We  must  tread  the  way  he  trod  by  being 
crucified  with  him  to  sin. 

That  is  why  the  author  of  Philippians  3 :  10 
desired  so  earnestly  to  "  know  him,  and  the  power 
of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  suf- 


;fg 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


153 


ferings,  becoming  conformed  unto  his  death."  He 
knew  there  had  to  be  spiritual  union  with  Christ  and 
spiritual  conformity  to  his  death  in  order  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  or  rather 
his  resurrection  life;  for  what  he  desired  was  some- 
thing to  be  experienced  in  the  present  state,  though 
in  the  hope,  of  course,  that  by  sharing  in  his  suffer- 
ings here  he  would  share  in  his  blessedness  there. 

A  few  additional  remarks  require  to  be  made 
respecting  the  tropical  use  of  the  term,  "  cross  of 
Christ,"  in  Scripture.  When  used  tropically,  it  is 
always  a  symbol  of  self-denial  or  self-sacrifice,  not 
for  the  sake  of  ourselves  simply,  but  for  the  sake 
of  others,  as  well.  Buddhism  emphasizes  self-denial 
and  self-abnegation  for  the  sake  of  self,  but 
Christianity  emphasizes  them  for  the  sake  of 
service.  Thereby  its  superiority  in  that  regard  is 
shown.  The  cross  is  a  symbol  of  complete  self- 
devotion  to  God  for  the  advancement  of  his  cause 
in  the  world. 

A  good  illustration  of  its  tropical  use  is  found 
in  Galatians  6:14,  where  the  apostle  exclaims, 
"  Far  be  it  from  me  to  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  which  the  world  hath 
been  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world."  In 
this  verse,  to  be  crucified  to  the  world  is  to  become 
dead  to  it,  or  to  anything  opposed  to  goodness  in 
it,  just  as  in  chapter  2:20,  to  be  crucified  with 
Christ  is  to  become  dead  with  him  to  all  that  is  not 


I  I  H 


'54 


AT  ONEMENT 


right  and  good.  The  speaker  meant  that  through 
the  cross,  that  is,  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  sytnbol- 
ized  by  it,  he  was  dead  to  everything  antagonistic 
to  God,  and  everything  antagonistic  to  God  was 
dead  to  him.  So  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he  de- 
sired no  other  glory  than  that  of  possessing  and 
exhibiting  the  spirit  of  the  cross,  and  he  was  deter- 
mined by  divine  grace  to  glory  in  nothing  else. 

Generally  speaking,  interpretations  of  the  death 
of  Christ  have  varied  according  to  the  different 
view-points  from  which  the  cross  was  contemplated. 
Wherefore,  it  seems  proper  now  to  show  that  the 
one  just  presented  is  uniformly  the  Scriptural  point 
of  view.  Throughout  the  gospels,  as  in  Matthew 
ID :  38,  the  term  is  a  figure  for  bearing  something 
patiently  and  self-denyingly,  and  implies  a  readi- 
ness to  follow  Christ  at  uny  cost;  and,  in  the 
epistles,  it  expresses  a  readiness  to  follow  him  even 
unto  death.  Only  the  more  important  cases  call 
for  examination,  however,  and  of  such  cases  only 
those  whose  meaning  might  be  obscure  to  the  ordi- 
nary student. 

Galatians  5:11  speaks  of  "the  offence  of  the 
cross,"  which  means  offence  arising  from  faith  in 
a  crucified  Christ  without  regard  to  legal  observ- 
ances, that  is,  salvation  through  becoming  cruci- 
fied with  Christ  to  sin.  Galatians  6:12  speaks 
of  being  "persecuted  for  the  cross  of  Christ," 
which  means  to  be  persecuted  for  that  for  which 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


155 


the  cross  stands,  namely,  salvation  through  cruci- 
fixion with  Christ,  and  not  through  performance 
of  ritual.  Then  I,  Corinthians  1:17  speaks  of 
preaching  the  Gospel  simply  and  practically,  "  not 
in  wisdom  of  words,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should 
be  made  void,"  which  implies  that,  ii  it  were 
preached  otherwise  than  in  its  historic  simplicity, 
the  cross  would  lose  its  significance  as  an  agency 
for  saving  men  through  their  becoming  crucified 
with  Christ.  Dying  with  him  to  sin  and  living  with 
him  to  God  is  the  tropical  meaning  of  the  cross, 
so  that  it  is  the  symbol  of  that  which  is  most  vital 
to  practical  Christianity,  namely,  something  to  be 
borne  paiiently  or  performed  cheerfully  through- 
out the  entire  life. 

Though  Ephesians  2:16  and  Colossians  i :  20 
have  already  been  considered,  their  bearing  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  cross  justifies  a  fuller  explanation 
of  them.  The  former  describes  Christ  as  reconcil- 
ing men  to  God  "  through  the  cross,"  and  the  latter 
describes  God  as  making  peace  "  through  the  blood 
of  his  cross."  Here  "  cross  "  and  "  blood  of  cross  " 
are  synonymous  terms,  representing  the  spirit  in 
which  Jesus  offered  himself,  or  poured  out  his  life, 
on  our  behalf;  and  both  are  said  to  be  instrumental 
in  making  peace,  or  effecting  reconciliation.  In 
each  case,  however,  it  is  meant  that  the  reconciling 
result  is  produced  through  the  entrance  i  tO  the 
heart  of  the  spirit  and  life  of  Christ,  as  otherwise 


1 1 


mu 


i  ! 


!  .   I 


I  '   i 


156 


AT  ONEMENT 


he  could  not  reconcile  us  to  God,  nor  could  we 
become  reconciled  to  God  by  means  of  him 

Thus,  since  the  death  of  Christ  was  the  supreme 
expression  of  self-sacrificing  love,  the  cross  is  the 
perpetual  symbol  of  self-dedication  to  God  and 
self-devotion  to  his  service.     So  we  cannot  make 
too  much  of  the  cross  either,  if  we  recognize  its 
figurative  significance,  remembering  that  faith  in 
the  cross  is  devotion  to  that  which  the  cross  repre- 
sents, and  that  faith  in  a  crucified  Christ  is  devotion 
to  God  with  his  purpose  and  his  spirit;  for    as 
Romans  5 :  10  teaches,  we  are  "  saved  by  his  life  " 
that  IS,  through  participation  in  it.    The  incoming 
of  the  spirit  of  the  cross  effects  a  change  and 
becomes  a  force  within  us.    To  be  saved  by  Christ 
or  by  his  life,  is  to  be  delivered  from  sin  through 
our  union  with  him  and  our  likeness  to  him     He 
is  not  a  divine  exemplar  merely,  but  a  mediator  of 
spiritual  life;  and  it  is  not  his  death,  but  his  life 
that  forms  the  foundation  of  Christianity.    More 
exactly,  the   foundation  is  Christ  himself  in  his 
whole   personal  manifestation,   as   I.   Corinthians 
3:11  declares. 

For  this  reason  we  should  not  separate  his  death 
from  his  life,  nor  think  of  his  death  apart  from 
his  life;  because  his  life  and  death  were  a  unity— 
the  latter  being  the  completion  of  a  continuous 
process,  namely,  a  career  of  loving  and  helpful 
service.    His  was  a  consecration  unto  death,  and 


1: 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


157 


it  lasted  throughout  the  whole  period  of  his  minis- 
try. Hence,  in  strictness,  the  death  cannot  be  iso- 
lated, or  viewed  by  itself;  and  in  Scripture  it  is 
never  viewed  as  having  any  value  by  itself.  That 
is  to  say,  it  is  always  viewed  in  relation  to  the  life, 
or  to  the  spirit  which  characterized  the  life;  so 
that,  as  previously  demonstrated,  in  their  bearing 
on  reconciliation  death  of  Christ,  blood  of  Christ, 
cross  of  Christ,  and  Christ  himself  are  equivalent 
expressions. 

What  has  just     ^en  said  should  help  us  to  cor- 
rect traditional   interpretations   of  the  death   of 
Christ.     Some  of  these  are  almost  too  painful  to 
reproduce,  and,  as  several  of  them  are  considered 
in  the  closing  chapter,  it  is  not  necessary  to  deal 
specifically  with  any  of  them  here.     Those  inter- 
pretations, however,  that  view  his  death  as  a  sub- 
stitutionary sacrifice  for  sinners,  or  as  a  substitu- 
tionary punishment  for  sin,  should  be  rejected  at 
once.     Those  interpretations,  too,  that  view  his 
death  as  the  objective  ground  on  which  the  sins 
of  men  are  remitted,  or  that  view  his  death  and 
suffering  as  in  some  mysterious  manner  satisfying 
the  claims  of  divine  justice,  should  also  be  promptly 
rejected.    We  should  repudiate,  in  short,  all  inter- 
pretations  that   view   his    death   as    having   any 
objective  influence  on  God,  because  they  are  all  con- 
trary to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 
Such  phrases,  therefore,  as  "  the  atoning  death," 


Mft- 


II 


i  • 


^i!i 


158 


AT  ONEMENT 


"the  atoning  blood,"  and  "the  atoning  cross" 
of  Christ  are  quite  unscriptural,  because,  un- 
less properly  explained,  they  are  misleading. 
Each  of  them  suggests  the  idea  of  an  expiatory 
sacrifice;  and  his  was  not  an  expiatory  sacrifice, 
but  a  voluntary  self-offering.  Rightly  explained, 
of  course,  they  may  be  used.  We  should  let  men 
know,  however,  that  we  become  partakers  of  eter- 
nal life  through  personal  union  with  him;  and  that 
the  only  expiation  required  is  the  making  of  amends, 
so  far  as  possible,  and  the  overcoming  of  the  conse- 
quences of  transgression  by  the  help  of  God.  No 
New  Testament  writer  regards  the  death  of  Christ 
either  as  substitutionary  or  as  satisfactory  or  as 
expiatory.  Since  there  was  no  influence  Godwards 
in  his  life,  there  could  not  be  any  in  his  death.  The 
notion  that  his  death  appeased  the  wrath  of  God 
is  not  a  Hebrew,  but  a  heathen,  one. 

Few  persons  now  believe  that  his  death  had  any 
effect  on  God,  in  the  sense  either  of  making  him 
propitious  or  of  procuring  his  favour;  yet  the 
question  is  still  being  asked.  What  has  the  death 
of  Christ  accomplished  to  make  it  possible  for  God 
to  forgive  sin?  The  answer  is,  nothing  whatever, 
so  far  as  God  is  concerned,  because  his  work  was 
wholly  manwards.  All  that  Jesus  did  to  enable 
God  to  forgive  sin  was  to  induce  men  to  come  to 
him  for  forgiveness  by  manifesting  his  love  and 
mediating  his  life.    As  the  influence  of  his  death 


I     -n 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


159 


was  manwards,  so  the  necessity  for  it  was  on  the 
side  of  mankind,  too.  The  question  also  is  still 
being  asked.  Could  God  have  forgiven  sin  if  Jesus 
had  not  died  ?  And  the  answer  is,  there  is  nothing 
in  reason  or  Scripture  to  suggest  that  he  could  not, 
so  that  the  very  supposition  that  he  could  not  is 
both  unreasonable  and  unscriptural.  We  look  to 
the  grace  of  God,  and  not  to  the  work  of  Christ, 
for  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins. 

As  the  apostles  knew  that  his  death  had  a  moral 
influence  on  man,  so  they  knew  that  it  had  no 
moving  power  on  God.  But,  though  they  knew  that 
it  had  no  effect  on  him,  they  both  knew  and  taught 
that,  besides  its  moral  influence  on  man,  it  was 
an  important  part  of  his  revelative  and  redemptive 
work.  His  death  was  a  voluntary  self-sacrifice  in 
obedience  to  the  divine  will,  by  which  obedience 
he  exemplified  in  a  pre-eminent  way  the  principle 
of  vicarious  suflFering,  which  is  an  all-important 
principle,  inasmuch  as  the  law  of  denying  self  for 
the  sake  of  duty  is  fundamental  to  everything  in 
Christian  life.  The  death  of  Jesus  was  a  sublime 
exemplification  of  the  great  rule  of  action  that 
self-renunciation  is  the  way  to  self-realization  and 
self -augmentation. 

Of  the  augmenting  of  himself  in  humanity  by 
means  of  death  he  is  reported  in  John  12:24  to 
have  said,  "  Except  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the 
earth  and  die,  it  abideth  by  itself  alone;  but  if  it 


i6o 


AT  ONEMENT 


i|! 


die,  it  beareth  much  fruit."  That  is  the  law  of 
the  spiritual  kingdom,  r.>  is  beautifully  imaged  in 
the  vegetable  world.  The  operation  of  this  law, 
under  which  all  men  are  included,  is  twofold :  first, 
we  must  die  to  self  in  order  to  attain  our  highest 
development;  secondly,  we  must  die  for  others  in 
order  to  bear  spiritual  fruit  in  them.  Dying  to 
self  is  the  condition  of  actualizing  our  possibilities, 
and  dying  for  others  :3  the  condition  of  multiply- 
ing our  actualities.  As  the  seed  must  give  its  life 
to  become  fruitful,  we  must  in  like  manner  do  the 
same;  and,  as  the  seed  by  thus  giving  its  life  repro- 
duces its  kind,  so  we  by  giving  our  lives  for  others 
become  reproduced  in  them. 

Atonement  in  death  is  consecrative,  therefore,  in 
the  sense  of  exerting  a  moral  influence  on  human 
beings.  It  is  the  moral  quality  of  his  act  of  sub- 
mitting to  death  on  our  behalf  that  gives  the  work 
of  Christ  such  power  to  sway  the  world.  It  is  the 
uniqueness  of  that  act,  too,  which  constitutes  the 
moral  attractiveness  of  the  cross,  suggested  by  the 
words  in  John  12:32,  "And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up 
from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  myself." 
The  moral  power  of  the  cross  possesses  an  attrac- 
tiveness for  all  right-thinking  men,  an  attractive- 
ness that  is  becoming  universally  acknowledged. 
When  not  effectual  in  directly  producing  conversion, 
it  influences  multitudes  of  people  to  lead  better  lives. 

There  is  thus  a  great  atoning  value  in  the  death 


m 


ATONEMENT  IN  DEATH 


i6i 


of  Christ,  but  not  of  the  kind  that  theologians  have 
claimed.  It  was  their  unfortunate  theories  that 
led  them  to  pervert  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures, 
by  reading  meanings  into  many  passages  for  which 
the  evangelists  and  apostles  were  not  responsible, 
and  which  they  would  promptly  repudiate,  if  they 
were  living  to-day.  The  beneficial  consequences  of 
that  death  on  Calvary  can  never  be  enumerated,  nor 
can  its  moral  power  ever  be  made  known,  because 
influence  cannot  be  either  weighed  or  measured.  It 
was  divinely  intended,  however,  to  inspire  not  only 
feelings  of  admiration  and  reverence,  but  also  senti- 
ments of  gratitude  and  love.  And  it  will  continue 
to  inspire  such  sentiments  to  the  end  of  time. 

In  the  Scriptures  two  specific  reasons  are  as- 
signed for  the  death  of  Jesus — the  one  a  Godward, 
the  other  a  Christward,  reason.  Romans  5:8 
asserts  that  God  commends  his  love  towards  us 
in  that,  while  we  were  still  sinners,  Christ  died  on 
our  behalf;  and  I.  John  5:  16  asserts  that  Christ 
has  taught  us  what  true  love  is  by  laying  down  his 
life  on  our  behalf.  So  it  was  love  that  prompted 
God  to  give  Christ  to  us,  and  it  was  love  that  im- 
pelled Christ  to  give  himself  for  us.  His  death  was 
thus  a  demonstration  of  love  on  the  part  both  of 
his  Father  and  of  himself. 

His  death,  however,  shows  us  not  so  much  what 
God  is  as  what  he  was  in  relation  to  God,  and 
what  we  should  be  in  relation  to  one  another;  for 


s 


! 


i 


\\ 

li; 


l!:l 


i!  ! 


162 


AT  ONEMENT 


there  is  nothing  that  Jesus  did  that  we  are  not  to 
do,  in  principle,  so  far  as  we  are  able  and  circum- 
stances may  require.  The  aim  of  his  work  In  every 
part  was  practical.  The  object  of  his  death,  like 
that  of  his  life,  was  to  imbue  us  with  his  spirit. 
Because  he  laid  down  his  life  on  our  behalf  we 
ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  on  behalf  of  the  breth- 
ren, says  the  apostle  in  the  last  verse  mentioned. 

The  same  degree  of  self-sacrifice  is  required  of  us 
that  was  required  of  him.  We  must  be  prepared, 
therefore,  to  serve  or  to  suffer,  to  live  or  to  die,  in 
discharge  of  our  duty  for  the  sake  of  his  cause. 
For  he  was  delivered  to  death  on  account  of  our 
offences  and  raised  to  life  on  account  of  our  being 
declared  righteous  that  we  might,  to  the  utmost  of 
our  ability,  do  for  others  what  he  has  divinely  done 
for  us. 


">  ? 


Ml 


1h 


I 


VII 
ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING 


DEATH  as  an  element  in  atonement  was 
considered  previously  to  suffering,  not  be- 
cause it  possesses  a  superior  importance  in 
itself,  but  because  a  greater  emphasis  is  placed  upon 
it  in  the  Scriptures.  More,  also,  has  been  made  of 
it  in  theology.  In  the  practical  sense,  however,  suf- 
fering has  an  equal,  if  not  a  superior,  atoning  value, 
as  will  presently  be  shown.  A  few  pages  must  first 
be  devoted  to  some  general  observations  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffering. 

The  existence  of  suffering  has  long  been  viewed, 
especially  by  religious  people,  as  a  problem.  There 
are  persons,  doubtless,  to  whom  the  problem  has 
never  seriously  appealed;  but  those  who  have  not 
felt  its  pressure  have  either  not  thought  much  about 
it  or  not  had  much  experience  of  pain.  By  some 
men  suffering  is  regarded  as  a  mystery,  but  a  little 
reflection  will  show  that  it  is  rather  a  necessity  than 
a  mystery. 

Up  to  quite  recent  times  it  was  customary  to 
think  of  suffering  as  having  its  origin  in  sin.  In 
many  quarters  it  is  still  customary  so  to  think. 

163 


II.* 


Iff' 


164 


AT  ONEMENT 


Much  suflfertng  is  undoubtedly  due  to  sin,  and  what 
the  wicked  suffer  may  be  principally  owing  to  it; 
but,  though  it  is  often  owing  to  transgression,  that 
is  not  the  primal  or  fundamental  cause.  The  funda- 
mental cause  lies  in  the  constitution  of  man.  Suf- 
fering comes  from  imperfection,  and  imperfection 
from  limitation,  and  limitation  from  finiteness. 

John  9 : 3  corrects  the  ancient  belief  that  a  phys- 
ical defect  is  always  a  consequence  of  sin,  and  for- 
bids by  implication  the  assuming  of  a  necessary 
connection  between  suffering  and  sin.  "  Neither 
did  this  man  sin  nor  his  parents,"  Jesus  is  reported 
to  have  said  respecting  a  man  who  had  been  born 
blind,  meaning  that  neither  his  sins  nor  those  of 
his  parents  were  the  cause  of  his  misfortune.  His 
blindness  was  owing  to  natural,  and  not  moral, 
causes.  Suffering  is  not  necessarily  a  proof  of  sin 
by  any  one.  It  is  rather  a  mark  of  frailty  or 
infirmity. 

Then,  besides  what  comes  from  weakness  and 
imperfection,  we  bring  a  good  deal  on  ourselves 
through  ignorance,  indiscretion,  aid  indulgence; 
and  besides  what  comes  in  each  of  these  ways,  a 
good  deal  is  brought  upon  us  through  our  connection 
with  others.  So  suffering  arises  partly  by  reason 
of  our  finite  natures  and  partly  by  reason  of  our 
social  relations.  There  is  thus  no  mystery  about 
it.  It  springs  naturally  from  conditions  that  belong 
necessarily  to  life. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       165 

Springing  from  conditions  that  are  both  natural 
and  necessary,  it  is  spmething  that  pertains  to 
sentient  beings.  Hence  all  conscious  creatures 
must  suffer  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent,  either  on 
their  own  account  c  on  account  of  others.  No 
one  is  wholly  exempt  from  it,  but  sooner  or  later 
every  one  has  some  acquaintance  with  it.  We 
should  not  surprised,  therefore,  at  having  to  bear 
more  or  less  pain,  because  a  measure  of  it  is  inevi- 
table. 

Notwithstanding  its  naturalness,  however,  suf- 
fering is  the  occasion  of  scepticism  to  many  and  of 
perplexity  to  many  more.  To  them  it  argues  limi- 
tation and  imperfection  in  the  Deity,  and  its  prev- 
alence makes  them  doubt  his  goodness  or  distrust 
his  ability.  Failing  to  look  for  its  origin,  they  con- 
clude that  he  is  either  not  all-mighty  or  not  all-mer- 
ciful, thus  assuming  him  to  be  either  limited  in  power 
or  deficient  in  love.  But  to  assume  such  an  alter- 
native is  unreasonable.  Suffering  is  a  part  of  the 
divine  order,  and  is  inseparable  from  the  present 
state.  It  has  several  significant  uses,  too,  and 
serves,  at  least,  a  threefold  purpose. 

In  the  first  place,  suffering  is  admonitory.  Pain 
warns  us  of  danger  or  disease,  or  possibly  of  both. 
It  shows  that  there  is  trouble  somewhere,  and  that 
things  are  not  working  smoothly.  It  is  generally 
an  indication  of  disorder,  and  is  always  an  evidence 
of  disturbance  either  from  within  or  from  without. 


i66 


AT  ONEMENT 


11'  -1 


An  aching  nerve  or  a  twitching  muscle  informs  us 
that  something  is  not  right,  or  not  normal  at  least, 
because  nerves  were  not  made  to  ache,  nor  were 
muscles  made  to  twitch;  and  the  same  thing  is  true 
of  every  part  of  our  complex  structure.  No  organ 
was  formed  for  giving  pain,  and  all  healthy  persons 
are  comparatively  exempt  from  it.  Freedom  from 
suffering  is  the  rule,  and  pain  is  the  exception. 
Discomfort  of  any  kind,  indeed,  is  so  exceptional 
as  to  be  a  sign  of  more  or  less  derangement. 

In  the  second  place,  suffering  is  disciplinary. 
Being  a  sign  of  derangement  or  disturbance,  it  tells 
us  to  look  for  what  is  wrong,  to  ascertain,  if  pos- 
sible, the  cause,  and  then  to  seek  for  some  means 
of  removal.  It  is  thus  a  providential  method  of  dis- 
cipline. Many  of  the  most  valuable  lessons  that 
we  learn  in  life  are  taught  in  the  school  of  suffer- 
ing. "As  darkness  shows  us  worlds  of  light  we 
never  saw  by  day,"  so  suffering  teaches  lessons  we 
learn  in  no  other  way.  Jesus  "  learned  obedience 
by  the  things  which  he  suffered,"  Hebrews  5:8 
says;  and  good  men  in  all  ages  have  similarly 
learned  not  obedience  merely,  but  devotion  to  the 
divine  will. 

In  the  third  place,  suffering  is  corrective.  It 
exerts  a  wholesome  influence  on  us  by  making  us 
more  careful  of  ourselves.  Having  discovered  that 
a  certain  course  of  action,  or  a  certain  mode  of 
life,  has  injured  us,  we  shall,  if  we  are  rational, 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       167 

change  our  course  of  action  or  correct  our  mode  of 
life.  In  other  words,  we  shall  endeavour  to 
keep  from  doing  what  we  knr  w  will  work  us  harm 
and  give  us  pain.  A  wise  man  will  abstain  from 
that  which  tends  to  injure  him,  and  will  avoid  both 
danger  and  disease,  so  far  as  duty  will  permit. 
Hence  suffering  may  produce  in  men  a  beneficial 
result.  Since  it  comes  so  frequently  from  the  con- 
scious violation  of  known  laws,  it  should  lead  us 
afterwards  to  observe  them  the  more  faithfully. 
Doing  that,  we  may  derive  some  profit  from  each 
painful  experience  of  transgression  that  is  not  wil- 
ful or  deliberate. 

Its  uses  prove  that  pain  may  be  a  friend,  and 
not  a  foe;  though,  if  we  transgress  too  often  or 
too  long,  it  may  become  a  foe.  Even  then  it  is  the 
violation  of  law  that  is  the  foe.  When  we  regard 
it  rightly,  however,  instead  of  being  an  evil,  it  is 
a  positive  good.  Designed  to  serve  a  threefold 
purpose,  it  is  permitted  because  in  the  nature  of 
things  it  has  to  be.  That  is  to  say,  it  comes  as  a 
natural  consequence,  not  as  a  divine  in.liction.  God 
does  not  send  suffering,  but  simply  permits  it.  As 
Lamentations  3 :  33  affirms,  "  He  doth  not  afflict 
willingly,  nor  grieve  the  children  of  men."  And 
the  term  translated  willingly  means  "  from  the 
heart,"  which  is  a  Hebraism  for  "with  intention 
or  design." 

Hence  people  should  not  think  hard  of  him  for 


I 


=  ji 


i68 


AT  ONEMENT 


permitting  what  must  come.  Much  less  should 
they  think  he  is  dealing  hardly  with  them,  if  it 
do  come.  Much  less  still  should  they  let  it  lead 
to  a  hardening  of  heart  towards  him  when  it  does 
come.  For,  if  we  bear  what  we  experience  of  it 
with  a  proper  spirit,  we  may  always  turn  it  to  a 
practical  account;  because  what  God  permits  he 
can  bless,  and  what  he  allows  to  happen  he  can 
overrule,  or  help  us  overrule,  for  good.  Borne  with 
patience  and  submission,  it  will  beget  sympathy, 
produce  sweetness,  and  develop  moral  strength. 
Being  a  means  of  development,  it  may  fit  us  for 
higher  duty,  finer  service,  and  greater  usefulness. 

Thus  the  existence  of  suflferin^,  is  susceptible 
of  easy  explanation,  and  the  ways  of  God  in  regard 
to  it  are  capable  of  complete  vindi.  cion.  There  is 
nothing  mysterious  about  it,  because  it  springs  from 
circumstances  which,  if  we  cannot  always  justify, 
we  can  always  explain.  Therefore,  when  we  feel 
grieved  at  the  extent  of  suflFering,  we  should  remem- 
ber that  much  of  it  is  inevitable,  that  much  of  it 
is  preventable,  and  that  all  of  it  is  righteously  per- 
missible; when  we  find  ourselves  bec;»ming  cold 
and  sceptical  because  of  what  we  suflFer,  we  should 
bear  in  mind  that  God  is  not  to  blame,  nor  in  any 
way  responsible;  and,  when  we  see  others  growing 
hard  and  rebellious  under  affliction,  we  should 
show  them  the  unreasonableness  of  such  a  spirit, 
and  should  encourage  them  with  the  assurance  that. 


.''1 1  i;ic  dI 

"  •'  ,-  in 

•^t.  on 

,,cot/n<J'' .  on 


•IS 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       169 

though  chastening  seems  for  the  present  to  be  not 

joyous,  but  grievous,  yet,  afterwards,  to  those  who 

have  been  exercised  by  it,  it  yields  peaceable  fruit, 

even  the  fruit  of  righteousness,  as  "thor  of 

Hebrews  12:  11  says. 
But  this  discussion  is  concerned*      tb  inc  riiins  .; 

of  suffering  merely  as  it  relat 

atonement.    So,  having  in  a  j,  1 

its  beneficial  results,  we  ha'       e^t 

a  more  specific  way  its  atoii  n..  f 

those  who  suffer  for  themselves,  am 
those  who  suffer  for  others. 

Suffering  serves,  it  has  been  stated,  lo  admonish, 
to  discipline,  to  correct.  So  far  as  it  leads  to  correc- 
tion, it  becomes  atoning  in  its  influence,  because 
it  tends  to  reconcile  the  sufferer  both  to  himself  and 
to  his  condition;  but  the  influence  is  strictly  aton- 
ing only  as  it  yields  the  fruit  of  righteousness,  or 
produces  conformity  to  the  will  of  God.  Whenever 
conformity  is  produced  by  suffering  that  is  borne 
with  a  submissive  spirit,  the  influence  is  atoning  in 
the  evangelical  signification  of  the  term.  Such 
suffering  is  a  powerful  factor,  not  only  in  bringing 
people  to  their  senses,  but  also  in  removing  estrange- 
ment and  effecting  reconciliation.  Multitudes  of 
men  and  women  have  been  influenced  by  it  to  con- 
fess their  sins  to  God  and  ask  for  his  forgiveness. 

An  excellent  illustration  of  its  atoning  influence 
on  the  individual  is  furnished  by  the  oarable  of 


170 


'AT  ONEMENT 


1%  'm 


1 

i 


i 


the  Prodigal  Son.  When  the  young  man  there 
depicted  had  wandered  far  and  suffered  much,  he 
is  described  as  coming  to  himself  and  as  resolving 
to  return  to  his  father.  It  was  suffering,  the  Mas- 
ter intimates,  that  brought  him  to  a  knowledge  of 
himself.  It  was  want  and  destitution  that  made 
him  feel  his  sinfulness  and  realize  his  alienation  and 
long  for  restoration  to  his  father's  favour.  Thus 
the  story  serves  in  a  figurative  way  to  show  the 
value  of  suffering  as  a  means  of  atonement  in  the 
case  of  those  who  suffer  for  themselves. 

Our  sufferings,  however,  may  have  an  atoning 
effect  on  others.  That  is  the  aspect  of  the  subject 
which  requires  particular  consideration.  Most  per- 
sons recognize  the  power  of  suffering  to  produce 
reform  in  those  who  bear  it  for  themselves,  but  its 
effect  on  those  for  whom  it  is  borne  is  not  so  gen- 
erally recognized.  At  all  events,  its  reconciling 
value  is  not  so  generally  appreciated,  nor  so  accu- 
rately understood.  Hence  a  complete  account  of 
suffering  for  others  must  be  presented. 

To  bear  something  for  another  is  technically 
termed  vicarious  suffering,  and  is  properly  ex- 
pressed in  English  as  suffering  for  another.  But 
the  word  "  for  "  in  that  phrase  is  ambiguous.  It 
suggests  the  notion  of  substitution,  and  is  com- 
monly so  explained.  That  explanation,  however, 
is  erroneous,  because  neither  in  Hebrew  nor  in 
Greek  does  the  particle  thus  translated  warrant  it. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       171 

There  was  no  such  thought  in  the  mind  of  any  Bib- 
lical writer,  as  a  literal  rendering  of  the  passages 
supposed  to  teach  substitutionary  suffering  would 
plainly  show.  Even  the  English  word  itself  does 
not  necessarily  suggest  substitution.  Its  original 
sense  is  beyond  or  before,  and  in  general  it  indicates 
reason  or  cause. 

A  good  Biblical  example  occurs  in  Isaiah  53 : 5, 
the  first  half  of  which  is  rendered  by  the  Revisers, 
"  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities."  Though  the  English 
preposition  does  not  necessarily  suggest  instead  of, 
or  in  place  of,  it  has  generally  been  taken  to  have 
that  meaning  in  this  famous  passage;  but  in  both 
Hebrew  and  Greek  the  particle  it  represents  signi- 
fies because  of,  or  on  account  of.  And,  in  every 
other  passage  that  seems  to  suggest  the  notion  of 
substitutionary  suffering,  the  preposition  both  in 
Greek  and  in  Hebrew  has  a  similar  signification. 
There  is  no  exception  in  the  Bible,  so  far  as  vicari- 
ous suffering  is  concerned.  Hence  the  clause  would 
be  better  translated,  "  He  was  wounded  because  of 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  because  of  our 
iniquities,"  as  that  rendering  removes  the  am- 
biguity. 

The  reference  in  that  passage  is  to  the  trials  of 
the  Jewish  Church  in  Babylon.  The  prophet  is 
describing  the  way  in  which  the  loyal  Israelites  suf- 
fered by  reason  of  their  disloyal  brethren  during 


i 


172 


AT  ONEMENT 


the  period  of  the  Exile;  and  the  thought  in  his  mind 
was  that  of  certain  persons  participating  in  painful 
or  unpleasant  consequences  on  account  of  certain 
others,  and  for  their  advantage.  The  terms  used 
in  the  preceding  verse  prove  this  assertion  to  be 
correct.  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  car- 
ried our  sorrows,"  *  the  prophet  says,  referring  to 
the  suffering  Servant  of  Jehovah,  or  the  Jewish 
Church,  in  captivity.  The  words  "borne"  and 
"carried,"  are  synonyms  suggesting,  not  to  take 
away,  but  to  take  up  or  bear.  The  idea  expressed 
is  that  of  bearing  the  consequences,  namely,  the 
consequences  of  others'  sins. 

The  Scriptural  force  of  the  latter  term  is  exhib- 
ited in  Lamentations  5:7,  where  the  writer, 
referring  to  the  Israelitish  nation,  says,  "Our 
fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not;  and  we  have 
borne  their  iniquities,"  meaning  that  the  children 
had  borne  or  carried  the  consequences  of  their 
fathers'  sins.  Participating  in  consequences  is  the 
idea  in  every  passage  where  the  word  occurs  in 
connection  with  bearing  or  suffering  on  account  of 
another.  It  is  a  law  of  God,  and  one  which  should 
create  no  difficulty  to  a  thinking  person,  that  the 
consequences  of  the  sins  of  parents  should  be  trans- 
mitted to  their  offspring.    If  their  iniquities  could 

•More  literally,  "Surely  he  has  borne  our  sicknesses  and 
carried  our  diseases,"  for  physical  as  well  as  mental  pain  is 
meant. 


t  1    ,* 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       173 

not  be  transmitted,  neither  could  their  virtues  be; 
but  children  are  both  cursed  by  the  vices  and 
blessed  by  the  virtues  of  their  parents.  The  law 
of  heredity,  like  every  other  law  of  nature,  is  a 
righteous  law. 

The  import  of  the  word  vicarious  must  also  be 
evinced.  Though  it  is  occasionally  used  in  a  sub- 
stitutional sense,  that  is  not  its  literal  meaning.  It 
is  derived  from  a  Latin  term  denoting  change  or 
interchange.  The  base  of  the  term  appears  in 
such  words  as  "  vicar,"  "  vice-consul,"  "  vice-presi- 
dent," '  each  of  which  denotes  one  who  shares  the 
duties,  or  interchanges  the  functions,  of  an  office 
with  another.  Vicarious  means  sharing  or  partici- 
pating in  something.  The  original  idea  of  the  root 
in  its  various  combinations  is  that  of  participation, 
not  that  of  substitution;  so  that  vicarious  suffering 
is  not  substitutionary,  but  participative,  suffering. 
It  is  sharing  something  with  another,  or  participat- 
ing in  something  on  another's  account. 

Sometimes  people  wonder  why  we  should  have 
to  suffer  on  account  of  others,  but  there  is  really 
nothing  strange  about  the  necessity.  There  is  no 
more  mystery  about  suffering  for  others  than  about 


'  A  president  is  always  a  president,  whether  in  the  chair  or 
out  of  it,  whether  at  home  or  abroad ;  so  that  a  vice-president 
does  not,  strictly  speaking,  take  his  place,  but  merely  shares 
the  office  with  him.  The  same  might  be  said  of  each  of  the 
other  terms  in  which  the  base  appears. 


174 


AT  ONEMENT 


suffering  for  ourselves.  Society  is  an  organism; 
and,  as  the  different  parts  of  the  body  are  knit 
together  by  tendons  and  ligaments,  so  human  beings 
are  united  by  social  and  domestic  ties.  Hence  what 
affects  one  in  some  measure  affects  all.  In  a  very 
significant  sense  we  are,  in  spite  of  ourselves,  mem- 
bers one  of  another;  and,  therefore,  are  compelled 
to  suffer  more  or  less,  not  only  on  account  of  others, 
but  also  for  their  sake.  Owing  to  our  intricate 
relationships,  there  is  an  interconnection  one  with 
another  and  an  interdependence  one  on  another;  so 
that  a  community,  as  well  as  an  individual,  may 
have  to  suffer  by  reason  of  sins  for  which  it  is  not 
responsible.  Because  of  association  and  organiza- 
tion, the  innocent  must  suffer  both  with  and  for  the 
guilty.  Thus  the  apparent  mystery  of  suffering 
on  account  of  others  vanishes  when  we  consider 
the  solidarity  of  the  race. 

Broadly  speaking,  our  very  existence  i?  in  many 
respects  vicarious,  and  we  are  constantly  required 
to  bear  something  on  account  of  those  about  us. 
The  notion  of  solidarity  is  so  deeply  rooted  in 
experience  that,  in  one  way  or  another,  it  has  been 
recognized  from  very  ancient  times.  Its  form  has 
been  modified,  however,  with  the  lapse  of  centuries. 
In  the  earliest  known  fomi  it  was  viewed  as  suffer- 
ing because  of  the  sins  of  ancestors,  and  among  the 
Hebrews  there  was  an  old  proverb  to  that  effect. 
According  to  Ezekiel  18:2,  the  exiles  in  Babylon 


li 

1!;: 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       175 

were  accustomed  to  say,  "  The  fathers  have  eaten 
sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge." 
This  proverb  was  used,  the  prophet  tells  us,  con- 
cerning the  land  of  Israel.  Jeremiah  31 :  29  refers 
to  a  similar  use  of  it.  So  it  appears  to  have  been 
a  popular  way  of  accounting  for  national  disaster, 
for  it  is  quoted  in  connection  with  the  misfortunes 
of  the  nation.  The  exiles  threw  the  blame  for  their 
captive  condition  on  their  forefathers,  as  Lamenta- 
tions 5 :  7  also  shows. 

Though  the  proverb  was  too  freely  used  and  its 
principle  too  sweepingly  applied,  it,  nevertheless, 
contained  a  good  measure  of  truth;  because,  as 
already  stated,  by  the  law  of  heredity  children 
do  bear  the  consequences  of  their  parents'  sins. 
Therein  lies  the  significance  of  the  declaration  of 
the  Decalogue,  that  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generations.  But,  sinful  as  Israel's  ancestors  had 
been  and  serious  as  were  the  consequences  of  their 
sins,  they  were  not  alone  to  blame  for  the  afflicted 
condition  of  the  exiles;  and  Ezekiel  reproved  his 
people  for  their  lax  use  of  the  proverb,  by  proclaim- 
ing and  enforcing  the  doctrine  of  individual  respon- 
sibility. "  As  I  live,  declares  the  Lord  Jehovah," 
he  says,  "  ye  shall  not  have  occasion  any  more  to 
use  this  proverb  in  Israel";  because,  as  he  adds 
in  the  same  connection,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die." 


176 


AT  ONEMENT 


-,;  ;i 


ft**'*'  ■' 


•if 


, ' 


From  what  has  been  said  it  is  manifest  that  a 
community,  no  less  than  an  individual,  may  have 
to  bear  the  consequences  of  the  sins  of  others.  But 
bearing  the  consequences  of  others'  sins  is  not 
vicarious  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  term.  In  a 
general  sense,  participating  in  unpleasant  conse- 
quences of  any  kind  may  be  called  vicarious;  but, 
strictly  speaking,  to  be  vicarious  such  participation 
must  be  for  a  purpose  or  with  a  result.  In  a  tech- 
nical sense,  the  word  means  participating  in  some- 
thir  uncomfortable  on  account  of  others  and  for 
th»  ^ke.  That  suffering  alone  is  properly  called 
ius  which  is  borne  by  reason  of  another  and 
o-    IS  advantage. 

b  ich  suffering,  moreover,  is  not  vicarious  in  the 
ethi'  '  sense,  unless  it  be  voluntary  on  the  part  of 
th  wh<  bear  it.  If  we  bear  something  on 
account  o  thers  involuntarily,  what  we  suffer  has 
no  n  ai  quality  at  all.  It  acquires  that  quality 
only  when  a  conscious  purpose  is  to  be  served. 
There  must  be  voluntariness  in  suffering  to  give 
it  a  positive  moral  character.  In  the  full  sense, 
therefore,  to  suffer  vicariously  is,  of  one's  own 
accord,  to  bear  unmerited  pain  or  loss  on  account 
of  another  and  for  his  sake.  That  sort  of  suffering 
exerts  a  potent  influence  on  those  for  whom  it  is 
borne — an  influence  that  is  both  remedial  and 
redemptive. 

In  cases  of  trial  or  affliction  it  is  remedial.    What 


^J' 


^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       177 

we  bear  for  ourselves  may  be  of  great  value  to  us, 
but  what  we  bear  for  others  may  be  of  greater 
value  to  them.  For  them  to  know  that  we  are 
thinking  of  them  and  feeling  for  them  in  their 
troubles  has  a  soothing  influence  on  them,  and  yields 
them  a  measure  of  relief.  True  sympathy,  how- 
ever, feels  with  as  well  as  for  those  in  distress,  and 
tends  not  only  to  soothe  and  mitigate,  but  also  to 
comfort  and  invigorate.  It  assists  them  to  be 
patient  and  reflective,  sutoiissive  and  resigned. 
Sympathetic  aid  has  always  been  a  useful  means 
of  helping  the  unfortunate  to  be  brave  and  strong. 
Its  effect,  moreover,  is  frequently  atoning,  and 
sometimes  to  a  notable  degree. 

In  cases  of  sin  and  crime  vicarious  suffering  is 
redemptive.  The  knowledge  by  a  bad  man  that 
some  one  is  suffering  for  him  influences  him  favour- 
ably, as  a  general  thing.  It  makes  him  feel  his 
guilt  and  realize  his  fault  in  a  peculiar  way.  It 
has  a  power  over  him  which  nothing  else  can  have. 
It  is  thus  an  effective  means  of  causing  men  to 
repent  and  reform.  Even  when  it  does  not  produce 
a  permanent  change  for  the  better,  the  influence 
may  be  very  beneficial.  But,  so  far  as  it  induces 
them  to  improve  in  any  respect,  or  to  any  extent, 
it  is  redemptive,  whether  it  leads  to  full  reforma- 
tion or  not;  and,  in  many  cases,  it  brings  about  com- 
plete amendment  of  life. 

Bad  men  are  often  benefited  more  by  what  good 


178 


AT  ONEMENT 


'vM 


men  suffer  for  them  than  by  what  they  suffer  for 
themselves.  That  fact  is  so  apparent  that  it  needs 
no  comment.  Very  often,  too,  the  good  suffer 
more  than  the  bad  before  the  bad  are  led  to  repent 
and  reform.  That  which  a  father  or  a  mother  feels 
for  a  wayward  daughter  or  an  erring  son  may  be 
beyond  comparison  greater  than  that  which  the 
wrong-doer  feels.  The  friends  and  relatives  even 
may  feel  the  disgrace  more  keenly  for  a  time.  In 
short,  that  which  the  innocent  suffer  on  account  of 
the  guilty  is  generally  greater  at  first,  because  while 
the  latter  remain  impenitent,  the  former  suffer  in 
a  more  painful  way. 

The  godly  exiles  in  Babylon  were  involved  in 
the  chastisement  of  the  ungodly,  and  endured  great 
hardships  by  reason  of  them,  but  they  suffered  much 
more  than  the  ungodly,  because  they  suffered  for 
righteousness'  sake;  whereas  the  ungodly  yielded 
to  their  surroundings  and  adopted  the  practices  of 
the  heathen,  thus  making  it  harder  for  their  brethren 
and  easier  for  themselves.  But,  painful  as  the 
experience  was  and  protracted  as  the  sufferings 
were,  they  bore  everything  with  patient  courage; 
and  by  so  doing  were  instrumental  in  reconciling 
thousands  of  rebellious  Israelites  to  Jehovah.  They 
suffered  long  enough  to  make  the  rebels  feel  their 
guilt  and  realize  their  need  of  getting  right  with 
God. 
What  we  suffer  by  reason  of  another  does  not 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       179 

keep  him  from  suffering  at  the  same  time,  of  course, 
because  each  one  must  bear  the  penalty  incurred 
by  his  offence.  "  Every  one  shall  die  for  his  own 
iniquity;  every  man  that  eateth  the  sour  grapes,  his 
teeth  shall  be  set  on  edge,"  Jeremiah  31:30  de- 
clares. The  wrong-doer  carries  a  burden  of  his 
own  which  no  one  can  bear  for  him  or  share  with 
him ;  but,  while  he  is  bearing  his  load  of  guilt  and 
regret,  we  may  so  participate  in  his  condition  as 
to  relieve  his  pain  and  lighten  his  load.  Vicarious 
suffering,  though  participative,  is  natural,  not  penal; 
and  sympathetic,  not  moral;  for  neither  sin  nor 
guilt  nor  moral  penalty  can  be  transferred.  It  is 
a  voluntary  bearing  of  something  for  the  sake  of 
smother,  not  by  suffering  in  his  stead,  but  by  endur- 
ing on  his  behalf. 

Though  we  may  conduce  to  the  relief  of  another, 
we  cannot  share  in  the  desert  of  his  transgression; 
nor  can  we  suffer  for  his  sin,  except  in  the  partici- 
pative or  consequential  sense.  There  is  no  such 
thing  as  vicarious  punishment,  or  substitutionary 
suffering,  for  moral  penalties  of  any  kind.  We 
cannot  suffer  moral  loss  for  another,  nor  can  an- 
other suffer  moral  loss  for  us.  All  that  we  can  pos- 
sibly do  is  to  suffer  sympathetically  and  partici- 
patively,  and  that  is  all  that  Jesus  did,  and  all  that 
he  is  said  in  Scripture  to  have  done.  Ezekiel  saw 
the  absurdity  of  supposing  otherwise,  when  in  chap- 
ter 18:20  he  asserted,  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it 


i8o 


AT  ONEMENT 


i  ■ 


shall  die:  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  son;  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall 
be  upon  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked 
shall  be  upon  him." 

Instead  of  being  meaningless  or  mysterious, 
therefore,  suffering  has  a  manifest  and  profound 
significance.  It  plays  a  very  important  part  in  the 
moral  development  of  humanity.  Our  afflictions 
are  designed  to  benefit  others,  as  well  as  ourselves. 
Many  centuries  before  Christ  the  canonical 
prophets  perceived  that,  in  the  order  of  Providence, 
a  judicial  purpose  might  be  served  by  temporary 
chastisement ;  and,  from  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  it  was  seen  that  the  sufferings  of  good 
men  may  have  a  beneficial  effect  on  bad  men,  and 
a  redemptive  value  for  them.  For,  according  to 
the  prophet  of  the  Exile,  it  was  the  unmerited  suf- 
ferings of  the  righteous  Israelites  during  their 
term  in  Babylon  that  formed  the  atoning  element 
in  bringing  the  rebellious  Israelites  to  rededicate 
themselves  to  Jehovah;  and  it  was  through  those 
unmerited  sufferings,  he  intimates,  that  supreme 
blessing  was  to  come  to  mankind. 

His  prophecy  was  almost  literally  fulfilled.  By 
enduring  patiently  the  hardships  of  the  Exile,  the 
loyal  part  of  the  nation  suffered  not  only  for  the 
benefit  of  the  disloyal  part,  but  also  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind.    What  the  former  bore  resulted,  first. 


t.: 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       i8i 


in  many  of  the  Utter  being  led  back  to  the  worship 
of  Jehovah;  it  resulted,  also,  in  the  captives  being 
provideatially  restored  to  Palestine;  it  resulted, 
afterwards,  in  the  gradual  spread  of  monotheism 
among  the  surrounding  nations;  it  resulted,  finally, 
in  the  preparation  of  the  ancient  world  for  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  and  the  founding  of  Christianity.  So 
all  who  have  received  the  Gospel  have  been  bene- 
fited by  what  the  godly  exiles  suffered  in  Babylonia, 
and  all  who  may  yet  receive  it  will  be  similarly  bene- 
fited by  what  they  then  endured. 

It  has  seemed  best  to  dwell  at  length  on  the  nature 
of  vicarious  suffering,  and  to  show  its  significance 
by  some  Old  Testament  examples,  because  the  New 
Testament  passages  bearing  on  the  subject  are  based 
upon  prophetic  usage.  Most  of  them,  moreover, 
are  taken  from  the  passion-prophecy  contained  in 
the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  as  will  presently 
appear.  We  are  now  ready  to  examine  the  chief 
passages  that  speak  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 

Before  we  deal  with  them,  however,  the  reader 
should  be  reminded  that  it  was  not  till  after  his  de- 
parture that  his  disciples  perceived  any  particular 
significance  in  the  things  which  he  suffered.  Be- 
sides what  Luke  tells  us  in  chapter  i8 :  34,  John 
12 :  16  says  that  it  was  not  till  "  Jesus  was  glori- 
fied" that  they  remembered  the  things  that  were 
written  concerning  him  by  the  prophets.  For  this 
reason,  the  evangelists  say  very  little  about  his  suf- 


MICROCOPY   RISOIUIION  TtST   CHART 

(ANSI  and  ISO  TEST  CHART  No.  2) 


1.0 


^    13.6 

■  10  _ 


I 


1^ 

1.8 


^  /IPPLIED  IN/HGE    he 

S^  1653  Eost  Main  Street 

S\gS  Rocriesler,  New  York        U609       USA 

^g  (716)  4S2  -  0300  -  Phone 

B  (716)  288-S989 -Fa« 


'I 


i 


I* 


I 


■s  I" 


182 


AT  ONEMENT 


fi  .1 


fering,  and  what  they  do  say  has  reference  partly 
to  that  which  he  bore  as  a  healer  or  helper,  but 
principally  to  that  which  was  incidental  to  the 
prosecution  of  his  mission.  Only  what  is  said  in 
the  former  respect  requires  to  be  explained,  as 
what  is  said  in  the  latter  respect  explains  itself. 
There  are  but  two  passages  in  the  gospels  to  be 
examined. 

In  chapter  8: 17,  referring  to  the  way  in  which 
Jesus  helped  those  who  were  brought  to  him  for 
healing,  Matthew  observes,  "  Himself  took  our  in- 
firmities, and  bare  our  diseases."  These  words 
are  a  reproduction  of  Isaiah  53 : 4,  which  describes 
the  voluntary  endurance  of  the  Jewish  Church  in 
captivity,  when  the  godly  exiles  suffered  on  behalf 
of  their  rebellious  brethren;  and  they  are  said  to 
have  been  fulfilled  by  Jesus,  because  he  realized  in 
a  special  way  the  principle  of  participative  suffer- 
ing contained  in  the  passage.  He  dealt  sympathet- 
ically and  practically  with  those  afflicted  persons  by 
compassionately  removing  their  diseases,  so  that 
his  suffering  was  vicarious  in  the  sense  of  bearing 
on  account  of  others  and  in  their  behalf.  Though 
the  language  is  appropriately  used  of  him,  it  is 
applied  in  an  accommodated  sense,  but  with  a 
lower  meaning  than  it  has  in  the  prophecy,  as 
Wesley  remarks;  because  the  godly  exiles  suffered 
literally  for  the  ungodly,  whereas  Jesus  is  here 
shown  to  have  suffered  only  by  sympathy. 


f.   '^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       183 

In  chapter  24 :  26,  27,  alluding  to  such  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  as  were  then  supposed  to  refer  to 
a  suffering  Messiah,  Luke  represents  the  risen 
Lord  as  saying  to  two  of  his  followers  on  the  road 
to  Emmaus,  "  Behoved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer 
these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory?  And  be- 
ginning from  Moses  and  from  all  the  prophets, 
he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things 
concerning  himself."  Then,  in  the  forty-sixth 
verse,  the  evangelist  represents  him  as  saying  at  a 
later  hour  to  a  company  of  disciples  in  Jerusalem, 
"  Thus  it  is  written,  that  the  Christ  should  suffer." 
Luke  attaches  no  particular  importance  to  the  suf- 
ferings in  anything  he  reports,  but  merely  asserts 
that  there  was  a  moral  necessity  for  him  to  execute 
his  mission,  by  fulfilling  the  principles  of  prophecy 
before  entering  into  his  glory.  Since  there  is  no 
prophecy  of  a  suffering  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  things  which  Jesus  is  said  to  have  inter- 
preted concerning  himself  were  applicable  to  him 
only  in  a  typical  or  spiritual  way.  In  no  other 
way  would  it  have  been  correct  to  assert  that  the 
Christ  should  suffer.  And  all  that  he  is  said  by 
any  evangelist  to  have  suffered  was  in  obedience 
to  the  divine  will  and  for  the  advantage  of  the 
human  race. 

The  first  important  passage  in  the  epistles  re- 
specting his  sufferings  is  Hebrews  9 :  28,  where  the 
writer,  adverting  to  the  fact  that  it  is  appointed  unto 


i84 


AT  ONEMENT 


» f  •;  -; 


men  once  to  die,  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  having  been 
once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many."  These  words 
are  a  paraphrase  of  Isaiah  53:  12,  and  are  applied 
in  the  same  way  as  those  quoted  by  Matthew  from 
the  fourth  verse.  As  the  godly  exiles  bore  the  con- 
sequences of  the  nation's  sin  and  suffered  on  behalf 
of  the  nation,  so  Jesus  bore  the  consequences  of 
the  sins  of  mankind  and  suffered  on  behalf  of  the 
world.  In  each  case  it  is  the  doctrine  of  voluntary 
suffering  for  the  sake  of  sinners  that  is  meant. 

The  second  important  passage  is  in  I.  Peter  2 :  24. 
Translated  accurately,  the  first  sentence  would  read, 
"  He  himself  carried  our  sins  in  his  own  body  up 
to  the  Avood,"  meaning  the  cross.  Here,  as  before, 
the  language  of  the  passion-prophecy  is  applied  to 
Jesus  in  a  typical  way;  and  the  idea  is  that,  as  the 
godly  exiles  bore  consequences  of  sin  which  took 
them  to  the  grave,  so  Jesus  bore  consequences  of 
sin  which  took  him  to  the  cross.  Peter  knew  as 
well  as  we  that  sins  cannot  be  literally  transferred. 
Hence  all  that  Christ  is  said  to  have  carried  up 
to  the  cross  was  the  spirit  of  voluntary  self-sacri- 
fice, or  a  willingness  to  suffer  and  die  on  behalf  of 
mankind.  And  the  apostle  commends  what  he 
did  on  two  practical  grounds:  first,  that  of  a 
pattern  for  imitation — he  suffered  on  our  behalf, 
leaving  us  an  example  that  we  should  follow  in 
his  steps;  second,  that  of  an  inducement  to  self- 
consecration — he  went  to  the  cross  that  we  might 


liLrtM  '  i-.'iit 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       185 


die  to  our  sins  and  live  unto  righteousness.  The 
context  is  full  of  instruction.  The  special  aim  of 
the  apostle  was  to  impress  upon  servants  the  lesson 
of  moral  integrity. 

One  more  passage  in  the  same  epistle  remains 
to  be  examined.  Speaking  of  the  providential  neces- 
sity of  suffering,  Peter  enforces  the  duty  of  patient 
endurance  under  all  circumstances  by  reminding 
his  readers  of  the  most  powerful  consideration  he 
could  urge,  namely,  the  example  of  our  Lord.  We 
should  suffer  for  right-doing  rather  than  wrong- 
doing, he  says  in  chapter  3:18,  because,  to  give 
an  accurate  rendering,  "  Christ  also  suffered  once 
on  account  of  sins,  a  righteous  one  on  behalf  of 
unrighteous  ones,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God." 
Again  the  apostle  indicates  that  what  Jesus  suf- 
fered was  by  reason  of  sins  and  on  behalf  of  sin- 
ners. As  was  said  in  substance  in  a  previous  chap- 
ter. It  cost  the  sacrifice  of  his  life  to  reveal  the 
whole  will  of  God,  and  to  reconcile  all  men  to  him. 
Everything  he  did  was  done  with  that  twofold  ob- 
ject, to  the  end  that  each  of  his  disciples  might  do 
the  same. 

Christ  also  suffered,  *'  q  apostle  says;  and  the 
adverb  is  significant.  It  suggests  a  resemblance 
between  his  sufferings  and  ours  in  the  work  of 
bringing  men  to  God.  What  he  suffered  on  behalf 
of  us  we  should  be  prepared  to  suffer  on  behalf 
of  those  about  us.    It  suggests  further  that  he  suf- 


I    ! 


W  ii 


!•      I' 


i    '■ 


i86 


AT  ONEMENT 


fered  as  all  consecrated  persons  might  have  suf- 
fered, had  they  been  similarly  situated.  Because 
of  his  unique  relation  to  humanity,  we  can  never 
know  the  wide-reaching  influence  of  his  sufferings 
or  the  wide-reaching  extent  of  their  influence,  but 
we  may  gather  from  Scripture  that  what  he  suffered 
was  the  same  in  kind  as  that  which  all  Christians 
should  be  ready  to  suffer  for  any  meritorious  cause. 
Without  the  possession  of  such  a  spirit,  we  can 
neither  participate  properly  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  nor  understand  experimentally  the  blessed- 
ness of  those  who  are  compelled  to  suffer  for  right- 
eousness' sake. 

Thus  in  every  passage  it  is  the  consequences  of 
sin  that  Christ  is  said  to  have  borne,  and  those  are 
the  only  things  that  he  could  I  ear,  so  far  as  human 
transgressions  are  concerned.  He  suffered  vicari- 
ously, because  he  suffered  sympathetically  and  par- 
ticipatively,  and  he  could  not  suffer  for  sinners  in 
any  other  way.  No  sin  was  literally  laid  on  him. 
Men  are  healed  by  his  stripes  through  being  bene- 
fited by  what  he  endured  on  their  behalf;  for 
offences  may  be  expiated  in  part  by  what  people 
suffer  for  themselves,  and  in  part  by  what  others 
suffer  for  them.  It  was  in  this  latter  manner  that 
healing  came  to  the  rebellious  Israelites  through  the 
trials  and  hardships  of  the  obedient  Israelites  in 
captivity.  The  sin  of  the  nation  was  expiated,  the 
prophet  of  the  Exile  teaches,  through  the  voluntary 


i  ' 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       187 

endurance  by  the  loyal  Israelites  of  the  chastise- 
ment that  was  necessary,  not  to  influence  God  to 
forgive  their  disloyal  brethren,  but  to  make  them 
realize  their  guilt  and  feel  their  need  of  forgive- 
ness. 

If  some  one  should  ask  what  are  the  consequences 
of  sin  that  one  bears  for  another,  the  answer  is, 
pain  and  suffering  and  unjust  treatment.  If  one 
should  ask  how  Jesus,  being  sinless,  bore  conse- 
quences of  sin  for  the  world,  the  answer  is,  by  sym- 
pathizing with  men  in  their  condition,  by  participat- 
ing in  their  sorrows  and  struggles,  by  enduring 
hardship  or  discomfort  on  their  account  and  in  their 
behalf.  Should  one  inquire  how  sinners  are  still 
benefited  in  virtue  of  what  he  endured  in  their 
behalf,  the  answer  is,  by  being  impressed  with  the 
nature  of  divine  love,  by  being  brought  to  feel  their 
need  of  forgiveness,  and  by  being  led  to  repent  and 
reform.  Great  as  was  the  redemptive  value  of 
the  vicarious  suffering  of  the  Jewish  Church,  the 
redemptive  value  of  his  suffering  is  as  much  greater 
as  he  was  greater  than  any  who  had  come  before 
him,  or  than  any  who  may  come  after  him. 

The  suffering,  like  the  death,  of  Jesus  was  a  moral 
necessity.  Two  generic  reasons  for  that  necessity 
are  given  in  the  New  Testament.  According  to 
I.  Peter  3 :  18  it  was  necessary  to  bring  us  to  God. 
The  need  in  this  respect  has  been  fully  explained. 
Then,  according  to  the  ordinary  English  rendering 


i88 


AT  ONEMENT 


.*M:( 


t     > 


of  Hebrews  2:10,  it  was  necessary  to  make  the 
author  of  our  salvation  "perfect";  but,  according 
to  a  more  adequate  rendering,  it  was  necessary  to 
bring  his  work  to  completion.  This  may  be  shown 
by  a  literal  translation  of  the  last  clause.  Instead 
of  saying,  "  To  make  the  author  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  sufferings,"  we  should  say,  "  To 
make  the  leader  of  their  salvation  accomplish  his 
end  through  sufiferings."  *  The  preposition  here 
expresses  the  circumstance  of  an  action,  or  the 
manner  in  which  a  thing  is  done;  and  the  thought 
seems  clearly  to  be  that,  as  the  leader  of  our  salva- 
tion, it  was  fitting  that  he  should  be  required  to 
accomplish  the  end  for  which  he  came  with  the 
accompaniment  of  sufiferings. 

We  may  now  see  what  the  Scriptural  conception 
of  his  suffering  is.  By  his  voluntary  endurance 
of  persecution  and  pain  on  behalf  of  mankind,  he 
demonstrated  the  individual  duty  of  complete  devo- 
tion to  the  divine  will  and  the  redemptive  value 
of  vicarious  self-sacrifice.  Thus  the  horrible  notion 
that  he  appeased  the  divine  anger  by  his  excruciat- 
ing suffering  and  his  ignominious  death,  has  no 
foundation  whatever  in  the  Scriptures.     Nor  is 


!C 


*See  Greek  Testament,  by  Webster  and  Wilkinson. 

A  similar  use  of  the  word  translated  "  perfect "  in  the  Eng- 
lish versions  occurs  in  chapters  5 : 9 ;  7 :  19.  In  each  passage 
the  idea  is  that  of  accomplishing  an  end  or  of  bringing  some- 
thing to  completion. 


v\ 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       189 

there  any  foundation  in  them  for  another  horrible 
notion,  that  Jesus  endured  in  his  own  person  that 
which  our  sins  deserved. 

Men  may  have  been  influenced  to  entertain  the 
latter  notion  by  assuming  that  the  goat  sent  into 
the  wilderness,  symbolically  laden  with  sin,  was 
made  to  suffer  there  what  was  due  to  the  sinners 
themselves;  but  the  sins  figuratively  laid  upon  its 
head  were  simply  supposed  to  be  removed  from  con- 
tact with  the  people.  There  is  no  hint  of  the  idea 
in  the  Bible,  much  less  any  warrant  for  it,  that  the 
goat  was  to  perish  in  the  wilderness  after  suffering 
the  sinful  deserts  of  the  community.  Neither  is 
there  any  hint  in  the  Bible  that  Jesus  suffered  in 
himself  the  stroke  which  would  otherwise  have 
fallen  upon  us.  That  is  theology,  but  not  Scrip- 
ture. 

He  did  not  suffer  a  single  pang  that  was  not 
morally  necessary  in  the  circumstances;  that  is,  in 
order  to  fulfil  his  mission  and  finish  the  work  he 
was  given  to  do.  He  had  to  suffer  as  he  did  to 
achieve  the  results  that  have  accrued ;  but  we  should 
be  careful  not  to  magnify  his  sufferings  unreason- 
ably and  unscripturally,  as  many  have  magnified 
his  anguish  on  the  cross.  To  believe  him  to  have 
been  in  a  state  of  conscious  abandonment  by  the 
Father  because,  before  dying,  he  is  said  to  have 
uttered  the  initial  words  of  the  twenty-second 
Psalm,  is  to  believe  what  has  no  basis  in  either  rea- 


ill 


I  M 


MV 

'  i 
i  !  , 


■If 


190 


AT  ONEMENT 


son  or  Scripture.  His  expiring  cry  arose  from  an 
experience  of  physical  rather  than  spiritual  dark- 
ness. That  is  the  way,  indeed,  in  which  the  psalm- 
ist used  the  words.  God  did  not,  and  could  not, 
abandon  his  well-beloved  Son.  The  suggestion 
that  he  had  to  endure  the  desertion  of  the  divine 
presence,  or  the  withdrawal  of  the  Father's  favour, 
should  never  have  been  made.* 

Speaking  in  chapter  i :  24  of  his  share  in  religious 
work  among  the  Colossian  Christians,  Paul  rejoices 
in  his  sufferings  on  their  behalf,  because  he  is  able 
thus  to  fill  up  on  his  part  "  that  which  is  lacking 
of  the  afflictions  of  Christ."  There  are  sufferings 
for  the  men  of  each  generation  to  fill  up  for  the 
cause  of  Christ,  and  there  will  always  be  something 
wanting  to  complete  the  afflictions  endured  by  him. 
As  the  apostle  rejoiced  to  Supplement  those 
afflictions  for  the  people  of  his  day,  so  we  should 
rejoice  to  supplement  them  in  like  manner  for  the 
people  of  our  day. 

To  suffer  profitably  for  ourselves  is  well,  but  to 
suffer  profitably  for  others,  too,  is  better.  If  our 
sufferings  contribute  to  the  development  of  charac- 
ter in  us,  the  result  is  good;  but,  if  they  contribute 
to  the  development  of  character  in  those  about  us, 
the  result  is  glorious,  for  therein  God  is  glorified 
by  means  of  us.    Nothing  is  too  hard  to  be  borne 

'Luke  23:46  afErms  that  he  died  in  conscious  favour  with 
the  Father. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SUFFERING       191 

if,  by  bearing  patiently,  we  may  diffuse  the  gospel 
of  Christ  among  those  who  have  not  heard  of  him 
or,  having  heard,  have  not  acknowledged  him  as 
their  Lord. 

We  should  never  forget,  however,  that  all  who 
are  willing  so  to  suffer  as  to  lead  men  to  God  may 
help,  not  only  to  make  Christ  more  widely  known, 
but  also  to  fill  up  that  which  is  lacki  '<>•  of  his 
afflictions  for  the  age  in  which  they  live.  And  no 
greater  encouragement  shoi.ld  be  required.  Since, 
then,  Christ  suffered  for  us  in  the  flesh,  we  should 
arm  ourselves  likewise  with  the  same  mind;  for 
supplementing  what  he  suffered  in  order  to  advance 
his  cause,  is  the  practical  lesson  which  his  passion 
is  designed  to  teach. 


VIII 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 

FROM  considering  the  element  of  suffering 
we  come  logically  to  consider  that  of  service, 
for  the  one  follows  naturally  from  the  other. 
At  first  thought  service  might  not  seem  to  be  an 
element  in  atonement,  but  on  second  thought  it  will 
be  seen  to  be  a  very  important  one.  Though  its 
importance  has  been  largely  overlooked,  all  that 
has  been  said  of  the  nature  of  suffering  for  others 
may  be  said  of  the  value  of  service  for  them,  and 
a  good  deal  more. 

In  a  true  sense  that  which  brings  estranged 
parties  together  is  an  atonement.  Anything,  there- 
fore, that  i.iakes  God  and  man  one,  or  that  helps 
to  harmonize  man  with  God,  may  be  called  an  atone- 
ment. Strictly  speaking,  of  course,  it  is  only  a 
means  of  atonement;  but  whatever  tends  to  remove 
estrangemeni  between  man  and  his  Maker  is  a  means 
of  atonement.  The  exhortation  to  the  brethren  in 
Galatians  5: 13  to  serve  one  another  with  love,  or 
in  th*^  exercise  of  love,  suggests  that  voluntary  servi- 
tude is  a  practical  means  of  developing  in  men  a 
proper  disposition. 

19a 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE  193 

There  is  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  that 
bears  directly  on  the  subject  of  atonement  in  service, 
though  there  is  much  that  bears  upon  it  indirectly. 
Several  times  already  we  have  met  the  thought  of 
service  in  connection  with  the  mission  of  Christ, 
not  as  technically  related  to  the  doctrine  of  recon- 
ciliation, but  as  practically  related  to  the  communi- 
cation of  his  spirit  in  order  to  get  his  followers 
wholly  right  in  heart.  All  that  he  did  in  bringing 
them  into  harmony  with  God,  by  revealing  his  will 
and  expressing  his  character  and  proclaiming  his 
love,  was  essentially  and  emphatically  service. 

In  Luke  22:27  he  is  represented  as  saying  to 
his  disciples  that  he  is  among  them  as  one  who 
serves.  There  is  a  possible  reference  there  to  the 
ceremony  of  the  feet-washing  recorded  in  John 
13:  14-16;  but,  whether  there  is  an  actual  reference 
or  not,  the  remark  describes  the  general  character 
of  his  work  on  earth,  which  was  not  simply  media- 
tive,  but  ministrative.  What  is  said  about  him 
there  corresponds  with  what  is  said  about  him  in 
Philippians  2:7,  where  he  is  described  as  assuming 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  as  leading  a  life  of  self- 
sacrifice  for  men  in  obedience  to  the  Father's  will. 

The  very  purpose  of  the  "eremony  mentioned  was 
to  give  his  disciples  an  object-lesson  in  humble  or 
lowly  service.  As  he  had  done  to  them,  so  he 
desired  them  to  do  to  one  another,  not  in  the  literal 
way  only,  for  that  was  a  custom  of  the  time,  but 


r/ 


1; 


11 


L 


194  AT  ONEMENT 

in  the  practical  way  of  serving  usefully  and  help- 
fully. By  that  act  he  exhibited  the  spirit  with  which 
they  were  to  act.  A  disciple  is  not  above  his  teacher, 
Luke  6 :  40  reports  him  as  saying  on  another  occa- 
sion, but  every  one  who  is  "  perfected,"  or  "  per- 
fectly trained,"  shall  be  like  his  teacher.  Mutual 
service,  mutually  helpful  service  conducive  to  the 
purifying  of  the  heart,  is  the  truth  inculcated;  for 
his  act  was  symbolic,  not  merely  of  humility,  but 
of  purification. 

This  outward  washing  was  a  symbol  of  inward 
cleansing.    It  symbolized  the  cleansing  of  the  soul 
from  sin.    The  practice  was  an  ancient  and  prev- 
alent feature  of  Eastern  hospitality,  but  the  lesson 
taught  was  t!iat  of  self-humbling  and  soul-cleansing 
service.     The  phrase  in  I.   Timothy   5 :  10  with 
regard  to  washing  the  saints'  feet,  seems  to  have 
been  used  by  the  writer  to  enforce  the  same  lesson 
and  inculcate  the  same  truth;  for  it  occurs  in  con- 
nection with  the  things  that  should  characterize 
a  woman  who  was  properly  accredited  in  the  matter 
of  good  works,  such  as  bringing  up  children,  show- 
ing consideration  to  strangers,  relieving  people  in 
distress,   ana   devoting  herself  to  every  kind  of 
good  employment.    By  the  symbolic  act  recorded 
in  John's  gospel  we  are  taught  to  guard  against 
self-seeking,  and  be  ready  to  render  disinterested 

assistance.  . 

Unselfish  service  is  more  explicitly  set  forth  in 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE  195 

Matthew  20:24-28  and  Mark  10:41-45,  where 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  called  to  him  his  disci- 
ples, some  of  whom  were  clamouring  for  superiority 
of  office  or  rank,  in  order  give  them  a  lesson  in 
humility.  We  are  there  shown  that  greatness 
depends  not  on  place  or  position,  but  on  character 
and  conduct,  and  consists  not  in  seeking  prefer- 
ment for  ourselves,  but  in  performing  work  for 
others.  The  dignity,  one  might  say  the  divinity, 
of  such  work  is  illustrated  by  the  example  of  Jesus, 
for  each  of  these  evangelists  tells  us  that  the  Son 
of  Man  came  not  to  be  served,  but  to  serve.  Those 
passages  indicate  that  self-denying  service  is  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  and  that  the  more  ready 
we  are  to  serve  with  his  spirit,  the  more  do  we 
become  like  Christ.  The  supreme  test  of  greatness 
is  a  willingness  thus  to  serve,  and  no  one  is  a  finished 
scholar  in  his  school  who  has  not  so  learned  to 
serve. 

It  is  not  self-interest  nor  self-assertion,  as  com- 
monly understood,  but  self-denial  and  self-sacrifice, 
as  practised  by  Jesus,  that  Christians  need  to  culti- 
vate. To  possess  his  spirit  fully  we  must  be  pre- 
pared to  serve  at  any  expense  of  time  or  energy. 
That  is  to  say,  we  should  be  willing  to  serve,  as 
well  as  to  suffer,  and  ready  to  suffer  in  order  to 
serve.  What  we  should  be  prepared  to  do  in  this 
respect  is  shown  by  John  17:19,  where  Jesus  is 
reported  as  saying,   "For  their  sakes  I  sanctify 


I, 

I  r 

\\ 
i\ 


^1 

n 

■1 

i'S 

^H  1 

|ii|' 

■  l 

lb" 
'■ii 

1 

nil 

b1  1 

i!;i! 

K        ill 

fsj  ^ 

If  1 

■i;i 

196 


AT  ONEMENT 


myself,  that  they  themselves  also  may  be  sanctified 
in  truth."  The  word  sanctify  has  here  the  sense 
of  devote  or  consecrate,  and  the  meaning  is  that  he 
consecrated  himself  to  God,  even  unto  death,  that 
his  disciples  might  be  truly  consecrated  in  the  same 
vi'ay  and  to  the  same  end.  He  made  himself  an 
offering  to  God  that  each  of  them  might  make  a 
similar  offering.  As  the  Father  sent  him  into  the 
world  to  execute  a  certain  mission,  so  he  sent  them 
into  the  world  to  carry  into  effect  the  purposes  of 
that  mission  with  his  spirit  of  self-sacrifice.* 

The  design  of  his  example  is  similarly  explained 
and  signally  emphasized  by  Paul  in  II.  Corinthians 
5:  14,  15.  There  he  expresses  the  opinion  that,  as 
one  died  on  behalf  of  all,  then  all  should  die  with 
him  to  sin  and  selfishness;  because  he  died  on  behalf 
of  all  that  those  who  live  should  no  longer  live  for 
themselves,  but  for  him  who  died  and  rose  on  their 
behalf.  The  purpose  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage 
is  to  make  the  followers  of  Jesus  feel  that  what 
he  did  for  them  they  should,  so  far  as  possible,  do 
for  those  about  them.  After  much  reflection,  Paul 
had  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  practical  object 
of  Christ,  both  in  life  and  in  death,  was  to  reveal 
that  great  truth,  to  exemplify  its  underlying  prin- 
ciple, and  to  create  in  his  disciples  a  willingness  to 
serve  at  any  cost  whatever  to  themselves.  And, 
if  they  possess  his  spirit,  they  will  be  impelled  to 

'The  word  for  sanctify  is  here  used  as  a  sacrificial  term. 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


197 


service  by  the  same  high  motives  that  actuated 
him. 

In  strictness,  everything  he  said  or  did  was  a 
species  of  service.  He  served  by  his  teaching  and 
preaching,  by  his  sorrow  and  suffering,  by  his  sym- 
pathy and  love;  so  that  we  may  glory  in  every 
aspect  of  his  mission  as  a  means  of  reconciliation, 
and  every  aspect  of  it  is  intended  to  be  an  example 
and  an  inspiration  to  us.  He  is  our  perfect  pattern 
in  all  things,  and  all  that  he  did  was  done,  partly 
to  deliver  men  from  sin,  and  partly  to  incite  them 
to  beneficent  activity.  He  wished  to  imbue  them 
with  his  spirit  and  inspire  them  with  his  life,  that 
they  might  live  properly  and  serve  usefully,  too. 
For  this  reason  he  desired  that  his  disciples  might 
be  kept  and  sanctified,  not  for  themselves  alone,  but 
for  the  important  business  on  which  he  was  sending 
them. 

Thus  fundamentally  his  whole  mission  was  a 
matter  of  service  for  mankind.  In  a  previous  chap- 
ter it  is  described  as  one  of  manifestation  and 
mediation,  but  it  was  as  truly  one  of  ministration, 
because  it  was  one  of  beneficence  and  redemption. 
He  led  men  to  God  no  less  by  his  life  and  character 
than  by  his  active,  evangelistic  labour.  Whether 
teaching  or  preaching,  helping  or  healing,  soothing 
or  sympathizing,  he  was  always  seeking  to  get  men 
right  with  God,  with  one  another,  and  with  them- 
selves.    Endued  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with 


I 


ll'iii 


'  r.  ' 


I9S 


AT  ONEMENT 


power,  he  "went  about  doing  good."  Acts  10:38 
tells  us.  And,  apart  from  what  he  did  and  said,  his 
very  presence  among  men  was  an  unconscious  force 
for  good  to  them,  and  one  that  exerted  a  reconcil- 
ing influence  on  them. 

Having  seen  how  atonement  in  service  is  illus- 
trated by  the  example  of  Christ,  let  us  look  at  the 
suggestiveness  of  apostolic  teaching  on  the  subject. 
In  II.  Corinthians  5:18-20,  the  very  process  of 
getting  men  right  with  God  is  described  as  a  minis- 
tration or  a  ministry;  and  "  the  ministry  of  recon- 
iii,  tion,"  as  Paul  calls  it,  is  said  to  have  been  given 
to  "us."  The  primary  reference  here  is  to  the 
apostle  and  his  fellow-workers,  to  whom  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  was  at  first  entrusted;  but  the  ultimate 
reference  is  to  Christian  people  of  all  classes,  with- 
out regard  to  sex  or  race. 

V/hile  God  reconciles  men  to  himself  by  his 
Spirit,  he  does  it  by  employing  human  instruments, 
not  simply  inspired  teachers  and  ordained  minis- 
ters, but  ordinary  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
Each  one  of  these,  ''  fore,  each  man  or  woman 
who  has  entered  his  ui^cipleship.  should  be  a  medi- 
ator of  manifestation  and  a  minister  of  reconcilia- 
tion. All  professing  Christians  are  comprehended 
in  the  sweep  of  the  apostle's  statement,  and  all  are 
under  an  obligation  to  co-operate  in  that  work. 
Such  is  the  scope  of  the  ministry  appointed  by  God 
to  help  him  in  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself. 


.3  ' 


-f 
» 

4 


• 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


199 


It  has  often  been  asserted  that  angels  might  have 
been  employed  to  show  men  the  way  of  salvation, 
or  that  God  might  have  saved  them  by  some  other 
agency;  but  such  assertions  are  unwarranted  by 
anything  in  the  Scriptures.  Whatever  God  might 
have  done  by  any  other  agents,  human  agents  are 
the  ones  that  he  has  chosen  for  this  work.  His  hav- 
ing given  us  this  ministry  indicates  that  it  was  a 
part  of  his  gracious  purpose,  and  what  he  purposes 
is  always  right.  Only  men  and  women  can  deal 
with  men  and  women.  Only  beings  such  as  we  can 
rescue  beings  like  ourselves.  Only  those  who  know 
what  we  know  of  him  can  impart  the  knowledge  we 
possess  to  those  who  have  it  not.  The  perfect  medi- 
ator between  God  and  men  was  himself  a  man,  and 
no  other  kind  of  peace-maker  could  have  accom- 
plished what  he  did. 

The  means  we  are  to  use  is  styled  by  the  apostle 
"the  word  of  reconciliation,"  which  signifies  a 
message  of  reconciliation.  It  corresponds  to  what 
is  styled  in  Acts  20 :  32  "  the  word  of  his  grace," 
or  the  message  of  divine  love  contained  in  the 
Gospel.  It  is  a  compendious  expression,  therefore, 
for  the  fundamental  teaching  of  the  evangelists, 
namely,  that  God  is  our  Father,  that  we  are  his 
children,  and  that,  if  we  err  or  stray  from  him  in 
any  way,  we  may  get  right  with  him  by  abandon- 
ing our  sin  and  amending  our  life. 
The  course  to  be  taken  by  us  in  this  work  is  sug- 


! 


f 


!!l 

Hi 

il! 


200 


AT  ONEMENT 


hi 

f^  -. 

■"it" 


',   1*5 


gested  by  the  appeal  contained  in  the  following 
verse,  "  We  beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ,  be  ye 
reconciled  to  God."  The  method  presented  here 
is  exhortation  and  entreaty.  That  was  the  way  the 
apostles  took,  and  is  the  way  men  have  to  take  who 
move  about  from  place  to  place,  publishing  the  mes- 
sage of  divine  love  to  assembled  audiences.  That 
is  also  the  public  or  official  way  for  preachers  and 
evangelists.  But  that  is  only  one  of  many  ways 
of  ministering  reconciliation  to  our  fellows. 
Several  other  ways  are  open  to  us,  and  some  of 
them  may  be  more  effective  than  formal  evan- 
gelism. 

One  of  these  ways  is  altruism,  or  disinterested 
benevolence.  Jesus  interpreted  the  divine  will  con- 
cerning human  relationships  in  terms  of  benevo- 
lence. We  are  to  prove  our  love  to  God  by  our 
love  to  one  another.  Such  benevolence  consists  not 
simply  in  wishing  men  well,  but  in  doing  them 
good,  so  far  as  we  can.  It  includes  the  notion  of 
practical  beneficen:e.  for  a  benevolence  that  does 
not  help  when  there  is  power  to  help  is  not  Chris- 
tian benevolence.  The  very  essence  of  Christianity 
is  unselfish  love  manifested  in  the  form  of  useful 
service.  All  altruistic  activity  is  beneficent,  and  all 
beneficent  activity  is  redemptive  in  its  tendency.  It 
impresses  those  in  trouble  as  something  divine;  and 
it  is  divine  in  its  origin,  because  God  inspires  it. 
Unselfish  action  tends  not  only  to  relieve  suffering 


11 


IL 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE         201 


and  alleviate  pain,  but  also  to  reconcile  people  to  the 
will  of  him  who  has  permitted  them.  That  which 
is  particularly  needed,  therefore,  is  redemptive 
endeavour  on  the  part  of  all  who  name  the  name 
of  Christ  By  serving  men  unselfishly  we  may 
benefit  them  sp-ritually  as  we  could  not  by  any  other 
means. 

Another  of  these  ways  is  sympathy,  or  fellow- 
feeling.    Practical  sympathy  is  feeling  with  another, 
and  not  merely  for  him.    While  we  may  feel  for 
those  whom  we  cannot  help,  we  should  feel  with 
those  whom  we  can  help  by  entering  into  their  con- 
dition, and  doing  something  to  improve  it.    True 
sympathy  may  be  rightly  styled  the  master-power 
in  human  nature.    By  using  this  power  wisely,  we 
may  not  only  imitate  the  example  of  him  who  is 
"  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities,"  but 
also  impart  moral  and  spiritual  strength  to  those 
in  mental  or  physical  distress.    A  word  of  encour- 
agement, a  sign  of  appreciation,  a  look  of  pity 
may  work  wonders.    That  another  should  think  of 
them,  come  to  them,  and  feel  with  them  affects  the 
sinful  and  unfortunate  more  favourably,  perhaps, 
than  any  other  thing;  for  such  fellow-feeling  will 
often  produce  penitence  when  nothing  else  would 
succeed.     Great  as  is  the   redemptive  power  of 
benevolence,  the  redemptive  power  of  sympathy  is 
greater  still. 

Yet  another  of  these  ways  is  example.     Being 


I 


1- 


i  it  , 


t 


It' 


I      r 


202 


AT  ONEMENT 


good  is  vital  to  being  right  with  God,  and  being 
right  with  him  is,  as  a  rule,  essential  to  getting 
others  right  with  him.  What  we  are  is  of  vastly 
more  importance  than  what  we  do,  so  far  as 
spiritual  influence  is  concerned;  for  it  is  much  more 
what  we  are  than  what  we  do  that  influences  people 
favourably  or  unfavourably.  It  is  the  life  or  char- 
acter that  tells  most  powerfully  with  others  for  their 
weal  or  their  woe,  since  that  acts  all  the  time, 
whereas  our  deeds  act  only  at  intervals.  To  accom- 
plish the  greatest  amount  of  good  and  exert  the 
highest  kind  of  influence,  therefore,  we  must  be 
consistently  good  ourselves,  because  example  is 
more  efficacious  than  precept  or  preaching,  or  than 
both  combined.  More  can  be  done  by  our  life  and 
spirit  than  in  any  other  way. 

Service  is  thus  a  very  practical  means  of  getting 
men  right  with  God;  and  we  may  serve  them  aton- 
ingly  by  our  entreaty  of  them,  our  interest  in  them, 
our  sympathy  with  them,  and  our  example  to  them. 
Every  one  of  the  methods  mentioned  may  help  not 
only  to  call  forth  what  is  purest  and  best  in  human 
nature,  but  also  to  make  reflective  persons  consider 
their  relation  to  the  Deity  and  dedicate  themselves 
to  him.  There  is  something  persuasive  in  earnest 
preaching;  there  is  something  impressive  in  disin- 
terested benevolence;  there  is  something  consoling 
in  spontaneous  sympathy;  there  is  something  stimu- 
lating in  Christian  example;  there  is  something 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE  203 

reconciling  in  every  one  of  these  ways  of  working 
for  the  welfare  of  the  world.  Each  of  them  exerts 
its  own  peculiar  influence,  and  their  united  influence 
cannot  be  told.  It  has  power  not  simply  to  con- 
vince, but  to  convert;  not  simply  to  relieve,  but  to 
rescue;  not  simply  to  soften,  but  to  subdue;  not 
simply  to  strengthen,  but  to  sanctify. 

Judged  by  the  standard  of  Jesus,  the  good  alone 
are  great;  but  his  goodness  was  a  positive,  not  a 
negative,  virtue.  While  goodness  consists  rather 
in  being  than  in  doing,  passive  virtue  is  practically 
valueless.  So  far  as  helping  others  goes,  it  is 
valueless.  At  all  events,  it  has  very  little  value 
either  to  the  person  possessing  it  or  to  those  about 
him.  Hence  the  most  useful  thing  in  the  service 
of  humanity,  the  one  without  which  all  other  things 
are  comparatively  vain,  is  the  possession  of  a 
Christly  spirit.  All  work  for  others  should  be 
performed  with  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

Bearing  one  another's  burdens  is  a  means  of  ful- 
filling his  law  of  love,  the  apostle  teaches;  but  we 
must  have  his  spirit,  if  we  would  practise  burden- 
bearing  or  sorrow-sharing  with  success.  To  serve 
others,  therefore,  as  we  should,  we  must  have  his 
singleness  of  purpose,  his  tenderness  of  feeling,  in 
short,  his  enthusiasm  of  humanity;  for  it  is  not  so 
much  what  we  do  as  how  we  do  it  that  moves  men 
most  and  helps  them  best.  Spirituality  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  performance  of  the  highest  kind 


SI 

h 
!■; 


! 


Sirff  i" 


f  J  V 


B  ' 


1  ,#   I  i  ■ 


204 


AT  ONEMENT 


of  work.  More  depends  on  serving  others  in  a 
loving,  forbearing,  Christ-like  manner  than  on  any- 
thing else.  With  his  spirit  everything  we  do,  like 
everything  he  did,  may  be  atoning  in  its  influ- 
ence. 

We  are  thus  to  be  purveyors  of  spiritual  life  to 
those  about  us,  and  to  all  within  our  reach.  We 
are  to  live  and  work,  to  give  and  help,  to  think 
and  plan  with  the  Christ-spirit,  so  that  an  increasing 
number  may  be  spiritually  benefited  by  us  all  the 
time;  for  all  Christian  workers  will  admit  that  noth- 
ing we  can  do  for  others  is  comparable  to  that 
which  we  may  be  to  them,  if  we  possess  the  proper 
spirit.  To  practise  beneficence  perfectly,  however, 
we  must  share  with  others  whatever  good  things 
we  have,  so  that  they  may  participate  in  our 
abundance — ^not  in  our  temporalities  merely,  but 
in  our  purity  and  spirituality.  While  we  may  recon- 
cile men  to  God  by  suffering  for  them  and  minis- 
tering to  them,  there  is  nothing  like  living  them  into 
fellowship  with  him. 

The  great  subjective  motive  to  service  is  religious 
love,  but  the  great  objective  motive  is  human  wel- 
fare. So  far  as  possible,  therefore,  we  should 
always  act  on  an  impulse  to  help  others  whenever 
the  prompting  comes;  for  all  such  promptings  are 
of  God,  and  no  one  can  tell  how  far-reaching  the 
result  of  his  action  may  be.  But,  though  it  is  always 
right  to  follow  a  noble  impulse,  it  must  not  be  fol- 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


205 


lowed  thoughtlessly  or  inconsiderately.  On  the 
contrary,  it  should  be  followed  with  wise  judgment; 
for  love  has  its  laws,  and  should  be  governed  by 
common  sense.  Unless  we  exercise  judgment  with 
each  person,  we  may  make  people  selfish  by  our  ef- 
forts for  them;  and,  instead  of  doing  them  good, 
may  do  them  harm.  The  regulative  principle  for 
Christian  service  is  that  all  men  are  to  help  one  an- 
other, because  each  one  needs  some  one  else,  and 
each  one  can  do  something  for  some  one  else.  Thus 
the  law  of  serving  others  is  self-corrective,  and  it 
excludes  selfishness  in  every  form. 

These  remarks  lead  naturally  to  the  importance 
of  social  service,  the  necessity  for  v»rhich  is  becom- 
ing more  apparent  every  day,  and  the  neglect  of 
which  has,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  been 
a  serious  drawback  to  the  progress  of  Christianity. 
This  element  is  being  increasingly  emphasized,  but 
much  more  stress  should  be  laid  upon  it.  Such 
service  is  needed  not  to  make  proselytes,  but  to 
make  good  citizens.  There  is  a  submerged  class  in 
all  large  cities  and  in  most  large  towns.  Those 
should  be  visited  and  evangelized.  There  are  also 
persons  in  every  large  commtmity  who  are  practi- 
cally lost  to  Christ,  because  of  the  inactivity  of 
his  avowed  disciples  and  the  inconsistency  of  his 
professed  followers.  Some  of  these  are  hostile  to 
religion,  and  others  are  indifferent  towards  it,  be- 
cause they  feel  themselves  neglected,  if  not  wholly 


I 


m\ 


: }  • 


206 


AT  ONEMENT 


overlooked.    All  these  should  be  sought  and  Chris- 
tianized. 

Many  thoughtful  persons  have  come  to  see  that 
the  true  function  of  the  Church  is  ministry.  Hith- 
erto it  has  been  an  institution  for  propagating  doc- 
trines; it  should  be  made  an  institution  for  propa- 
gating endeavours.  Excellent  as  sound  doctrine  is, 
and  it  has  great  intrinsic  value,  it  is  not  more 
excellent  than  earnest  endeavour.  Among  reflective 
Christians  to-day  there  is  a  growing  conviction  that 
we  need  a  new  religious  propagandism,  a  propa- 
gandism  for  spiritual  activity;  for  ecclesiastical 
machinery  is  preventing  hand-work  and  paralyzing 
personal  effort.  Organization  is  necessary,  of 
course,  but  ministration  is  much  more  necessary. 
One  ought  to  say,  perhaps,  it  is  organization  for 
ministration  that  we  need,  because  ministration  is 
the  thing  of  prime  importance.  The  grand  'esider- 
atum  is  more  general  association  for  helpful  service 
to  humanity. 

When  the  nature  of  the  requirements  is  properly 
understood  and  the  value  of  ministration  adequately 
appreciated,  good  men  and  women  will  devote 
more  time  to  beneficent  activity,  for  their  indiffer- 
ence to  social  obligations  and  their  neglect  of  social 
duties  are  greatly  to  be  regretted.  Beneficent 
spiritual  activity  is  here  meant,  because  we  may 
be  socially  active,  but  spiritually  inert.  There  has 
been  altogether  too  ir.uch  individualism  in  the  past, 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE         207 

and  too  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  ciihi- 
vation  of  the  inclivi(UiaI.  Such  culture  is  very  im- 
portant, but  conquest  is  of  greater  importance;  and 
it  is  culture  by  conriuest  that  is  required. 

Hereto iore  religious  people  have  thought  more 
of  their  personal  welfare  than  of  the  well-being 
of  the  community,  and  have  sought  their  own  sal- 
vation rather  than  that  of  those  alK)ut  them.  In 
some  denominations  this  has  been  particularly  the 
case.  Professing  Christians  should  be  made  to 
feel  that  they  are  saved  to  serve  md  that  service 
for  others  is  the  supreme  test,  not  only  of  greatness, 
but  also  of  discipleship.  Those  who  think  simply 
of  their  own  safety  are  selfish  and  self-centred, 
and  a  selfish  spirit  is  contrary  to  the  mind  of  Christ. 
To  be  like  Jesus  we  must  die  to  self,  as  well  as 
sin,  and  live  to  God  by  leading  others  to  him. 
Activity  of  that  sort  is  a  condition  of  true  disciple- 
ship. 

To  remedy  the  existing  state  of  things  the  Church 
must  be  reorganized.  Too  long  and  too  exclusively 
she  has  been  organized  for  worship;  the  time  has 
come  when  she  should  be  organized  for  work.  If 
ministry  be  her  rightful  function,  and,  according 
to  our  Lord,  it  is,  then  the  sooner  she  is  organized 
for  work,  the  better  both  for  her  and  for  the  world. 
The  sole  object  of  the  Gospel  is  the  uplifting  of 
mankind  by  bringing  them  into  fellowship  with 
God.    To  get  and  keep  men  right  with  him  is  what 


5 


? 


n 

t  i| 

i.  11 


2o8 


AT  ONEMENT 


^^  ■ 


1^ 


{•• 


f 


i 


Bit,, if 

■! 

fit 
I     I 

'        "  i  I    . 


It*'"  't 


is  needed.  Epitomizing  Micah  6:8,  Matthew 
23 :  23  sums  up  the  divine  requirements  in  the  three 
great  moral  duties— justice,  mercy,  faith.  These 
are  the  only  things  that  God  requires,  and  to  make 
them  universal  is  all  that  he  desires.  The  work 
of  making  them  universal  is  assigned  to  us;  and 
such  work,  properly  performed,  is  worship. 

In  his  recent  novel,  "A  Prophet  in  Babylon," 
Dr.  W.  J.  Dawson  proposes  a  League  of  Service 
composed  of  workers  outside  the  churches,  who 
will  be  united  by  the  love  of  humanity  in  the  com- 
mon service  of  humanity.     The  motto  suggested 
for  this  league  is  "  A  fellowship  of  all  who  love  in 
the  service  of  all  who  suffer."    But,  much  as  such 
a  league  might  accomplish,  the  Church,  which  is 
already  organized  for  fellowship,  needs  only  to  be 
organized  for  work  to  become  able,  in  due  time, 
to  evangelize  the  world.    Once  organized  on  that 
basis,  she  should  be  broad  enough  to  include  in 
her  membership  all  who  are  willing  to  help  with 
a  Christ-like  spirit  in  the  uplifting  of  mankind,  and 
should  be  strong  enough  to  draw  to  her  assistance 
every  humanitarian  society,  such  as  the  one  pro- 
posed. 

Instead  of  "A  fellowship  of  all  who  love  in 
the  service  of  all  who  suffer,"  a  better  motto  for 
the  Church  would  be,  "  The  co-operation  of  all  who 
love  in  the  service  of  all  who  live";  for  we  all 
need  one  r.nother  in  some  sense,  and  we  can  all 


li      i 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


20C 


serve  one  another  in  some  way.  The  obligation 
to  serve  is  universal.  Every  one  can  do  something 
and  every  one  should  do  something.  The  Christian- 
ity of  Jesus  is  co-operative.  The  joint  action  of 
men  with  one  another  and  with  God  is  what  he 
advocated.  Discipleship  for  him  means  brotherhood 
between  man  and  man,  and  brotherhood  between 
man  and  man  means  mutual  helpfulness.  That 
is  its  fundamental  idea.  Besides,  we  are  so  consti- 
tuted that  we  need  one  another.  No  person  can 
attain  a  high  degree  of  excellence,  much  less  be- 
come all  that  he  might  be,  by  himself.  "  The  indi- 
vidual cannot  be  perfect  apart  from  his  kind,"  some 
one  has  pertinently  said.  He  will  inevitably  have  an 
imperfect  character  who  attempts  to  live  alone. 
Hence  the  union  of  all  for  the  welfare  of  all  is 
the  practical  interpretation  of  the  Christ-ideal. 

Of  late  years  the  opinion  has  often  been  ex- 
pressed that  the  Church  of  the  future  will  be  the 
Church  of  the  Good  Samaritan  and  the  Golden 
Rule,  and  there  seems  every  reason  to  believe  that 
it  will.  Nor  can  such  a  readjustment  be  too  speed- 
ily brought  about.  When  that  takes  place,  the 
standard  of  enrolment  will  be  a  desire  to  be  use- 
ful and  a  willingness  to  work.  Then  the  Church 
will  be  pervaded  by  a  spirit  of  helpfulness  and 
dominated  by  the  rule  of  love;  for  self-sacrificing 
love  is  a  master-principle,  containing  in  itself  a  law 
which  embraces  all  beings  and  comprehends  all 


2IO 


AT  ONEMENT 


;!  1; 


duties.  As  unselfish  action  regulated  by  the  rule 
of  love  is  the  supreme  test  of  discipleship  for 
Christ,  it  should  be  a  suitable  qualification  for  mem- 
bership in  his  Church. 

Christianity  is  essentially  a  social  religion.  Its 
fundamental  doctrines  are  those  of  divine  father- 
hood and  human  brotherhood.  It  is  founded  on  the 
conception  of  a  family,  and  the  iilial  relationship 
is  that  which  Jesus  emphasizes  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  His  view  of  the  divine  kingdom  is 
that  of  a  great  household  in  which  God  rules  as 
a  benignant  Father  over  all  who  are  devoted  to 
his  will.  Such  a  household  implies  on  the  part 
of  its  members  conscious  fellowship  with  God  and 
mutual  helpfulness  among  themselves.  Hence,  if 
Christianity  is  to  fulfil  its  heaven-appointed  mission; 
nay,  if  it  is  measurably  to  realize  the  divine  ideal, 
the  Church  must  pay  more  attention  to  social  condi- 
tions and  give  more  prominence  to  social  work. 
Each  Christian  should  be  trained  to  render  helpful 
service  with  a  loving  spirit. 

Since  atonement  in  service  is  ministrative,  and 
since  ministration  is  so  momentous  a  means  of 
reconciliation,  we  should  scarcely  require  to  be 
exhorted  to  perform  social  work.  Others  have  a 
claim  on  a  portion  of  our  time  and  thought,  at  least; 
and  the  knowledge  that  they  need  us,  and  that  we 
may  benefit  them  by  our  efforts  for  them,  should 
be  a  sufficient  incentive.     Then  we  have  for  our 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


211 


encouragement  the  assurance  that  he  who  turns  a 
sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way,  becomes  the  in- 
strument of  saving  a  soul  from  death  and  of  cover- 
ing a  multitude  of  sins.  Nevertheless,  there  are 
several  other  considerations  that  may  be  briefly 
described. 

The  first  consideration  for  the  Christian  is  the 
example  of  Cb  ist,  which  has  been  mentioned  several 
times,  thougii  in  a  different  connection  each  time. 
His  life  of  service  was  designed  to  be  a  pattern  for 
each  of  us,  and  we  are  to  imitate  him  in  unselfish 
acting,  no  less  than  in  uncomplaining  suffering; 
for  he  intends  each  disciple  to  lead  a  life  of  benefi- 
cent and  redemptive  activity.  His  love  within 
us  should  constrain  us  to  active  effort,  as  it  con- 
strained the  apostle  Paul,  and  as  it  has  constrained 
all  since  his  day  who  have  been  successful  in  turn- 
ing men  from  sin.  Love  that  is  unready  to  suffer, 
or  unwilling  to  serve  in  the  interest  of  humanity, 
is  unworthy  of  the  name  of  Christian. 

A  second  consideration  is  the  example  of  God.  He 
is  the  self-giving  soul  of  the  universe,  and  is  always 
giving  himself  to  his  creatures.  As  he  serves  us, 
we  should  serve  others;  and,  as  he  is  never  weary 
of  blessing  us,  we  should  never  tire  of  benefiting 
them.  To  serve  others,  therefore,  is  not  merely 
to  be  like  Christ,  but  to  be  like  God  himself.  It 
is  Godlike  to  love  the  unlovely  and  help  the  un- 
worthy; and  anything  that  gives  men  a  truer  con- 


212 


AT  ONEMENT 


S*!       !H 


ception  of  his  character,  or  a  better  understanding 
of  his  requirements,  is  essentially  atoning  in  its 

influence. 

A  third  consideration  is  the  example  of  nature. 
Everything  in  creation  was  made  to  serve;  nothing 
exists  that  was  not  meant  to  do  something.  The 
roots  of  a  tree  serve  the  trunk;  the  trunk  serves 
the  branches;  the  branches  serve  the  twigs  and 
stems;  the  twigs  and  stems  serve  the  leaves  and 
blossoms ;  the  leaves  and  blossoms  serve  the  other 
parts  of  the  organism,  and  all  work  together  to 
serve  something  else.  Moreover,  the  sun,  the 
moon,  the  stars,  and  other  created  objects  are  all 
intended  to  serve,  and  are  all  serving  in  some  way. 

A  fourth  consideration  is  the  obligation  to  serve. 
Since  ministering  is  the  real  meaning  of  existence, 
ministration  is  the  true  purpose  of  life.  Being 
made  for  ser\ace,  we  owe  it  to  ourselves,  as  well 
as  our  Maker,  to  do  what  we  can  for  the  world. 
Unless  our  life  represent  some  benefit  to  others, 
we  are  not  living  as  we  should.  We  need 
a  deeper  appreciation  and  a  fuller  acceptance 
of  the  duty  which  nature  imposes  on  us  with 
a  view  to  the  continuity  and  elevation  of  the 
race.  The  solidarity  of  mankind  necessitates 
service  rather  than  sufferir^,  because,  while  a  par- 
tial measure  of  the  latter  is  inevitable,  a  complete 
measure  of  the  former  is  imperative.  We  may  be 
required  to  suffer,  but  we  are  morally  bound  to 


■1  II 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE 


213 


serve.  To  object  to  serve,  therefore,  or  to  neglect 
to  serve  is  to  disregard  both  the  primary  duty  and 
the  principal  end  of  life. 

Then  the  fifth  consideration  is  the  joy  of  service. 
There  is  a  delight  in  self-denying  effort,  and  those 
who  live  only  for  themselves  lose  all  that  is 
richest  and  sweetest  in  Christian  experience.  It  is 
not  the  egoistic,  but  the  altruistic,  life  that  gives 
gladness  and  satisfaction.  Noble  deeds  unselfishly 
ner formed,  these  are  the  things  that  make  life  a 
joyous  and  blessed  possession.  We  should  think 
of  the  privilege  of  serving,  therefore,  not  of  the 
expensiveness  of  it;  for  they  know  nothing  of  the 
joy  of  service  who  think  anything  of  the  cost  of 
sacrifice.  The  practice  of  self-denial  for  the  sake 
of  others  brings  a  benediction  with  it;  and  the 
enjoyment  is  intensified  when  we  are  instrumental 
in  turning  men  from  sin  and  leading  them  to  God. 

But  the  great  practical  considerations  are  that 
others  need  our  assistance  and  that  we  need  the 
discipline  which  assisting  them  affords.  The  latter 
as  well  as  the  former  motive  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count. For,  besides  the  fact  that  we  are  obligated 
by  the  bond  of  brotherhood  to  render  helpful 
service,  ..e  should  remember  that  the  end  of  exist- 
ence is  not  self-interest,  but  self-realization,  and 
that  self-realization  is  possible  only  through  associ- 
ation and  co-operation.  It  depends  in  part  on  inter- 
course with  others,  and  in  part  on  ministering  to 


214 


AT  ONEMENT 


A! 


\r.] 


l>i 


«  ,-■ 


1  h 

'  I' 

t 

•  i 

■11  -  ■ 


them.  We  are  here  to  develop  ourselves  by  leading 
useful  lives,  and  wc  cannot  develop  ourselves  per- 
*fectly  without  a  certain  amount  of  self-denying 
effort.  The  self-realization  of  those  who  love, 
however,  includes  the  realization  of  those  who  are 
loved. 

To  think  of  the  advantage  to  ourselves  of  self- 
denying  effort  may  not  seem  altruistic;  but,  if 
self-interest  be  subordinated  to  benevolence,  we 
are  justified  in  considering  it.  While  we  should 
work  for  others  without  direct  regard  for  self,  not 
allowing  personal  advantage  to  influence  us  unduly, 
the  motive  of  self-realization  is  a  legitimate  one. 
God  intends  unselfish  action  to  be  a  benefit  to 
those  who  serve,  as  well  as  those  who  are  served. 
Therefore,  thought  of  our  own  welfare  is  not  in- 
consistent with  a  self-renouncing  spirit;  and,  if  our 
efforts  are  earnestly  directed  to  the  serving  of 
society  and  the  saving  of  men,  there  will  be  no 
danger  of  selfishness. 

Those  who  are  fully  consecrated  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  however,  will  need  no  consideration  other 
than  that  of  doing  good.  Such  persons  will  think 
rather  of  results  than  of  rewards,  and  will  serve  pri- 
marily for  the  sake  of  being  useful.  The  beneficial 
effect  of  their  efforts  will  be  a  suflficient  stimulus 
in  itself.  And,  while  the  discipline  may  be  as  impor- 
tant to  them  as  the  activity  is  profitable  for  others, 
they  will  feel  that  the  well-being  of  society  requires 


ATONEMENT  IN  SERVICE         215 

their  service  and,  therefore,  it  is  their  duty  to  do 
all  they  can. 

But,  whatever  worthy  motive  may  sway  as  most 
powerfully,  it  is  Scriptural  to  remember  that  the 
losing  of  our  life  is  the  only  way  to  find  it.  That 
is  the  universal  law  for  moral  beings,  and  nothing 
can  be  more  gratifying  than  to  have  our  life  repro- 
duced in  the  lives  of  others.  To  give  is  to  live,  and 
to  live  a  complete  life  we  must  give  ourselves  in 
loving  devotion  to  the  divine  will  for  the  benefit 
of  humanity.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  increase  the 
stock  of  good-will  among  men,  but  a  vastly  greater 
thing  to  get  them  right  with  God  at  the  same  time. 


I 


iil, 


ill 


'    .'   lis      '  J 

mm    i 


^\h\' 


J, 


1 

.1      i 


IX 

ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 

HAVING  considered  all  the  Biblical  ele- 
ments, we  have  still  to  deal  with  the  lead- 
ing theories  that  have  been  constructed 
during  the  past  seventeen  hundred  years.  Each  ele- 
ment has  been  seen  to  have  a  significance  of  its  own; 
and  each  aspect  of  the  work  of  Christ-his  Me. 
his  teaching,  his  death,  his  suffering-has  been 
shown  to  be  of  very  great  account. 

Though  men  have  been  accustomed  to  speak  ot 
it  as  a.  profound  mystery,  and  encouraged  to  thmk 
of  it  as  something  that  cannot  be  fully  explamed 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  atonement  is  as  natural 
as  forgiveness,  and  as  easy  to  understand     On  the 
Godward  side,  indeed,  it  is  forgiveness,  bemg  the 
act  of  God  in  figuratively  covering  or  cancellmg 
sin  when  we  comply  with  the  requisite  conditions. 
This  he  is  said  to  do  by  freeing  us  from  its  guilt 
and  condemnation,  but  not  from  its  effects  except 
as  they  may  be  overcome  by  the  power  of  divine 

^'ntnce,  when  people  obtain  the  Biblical  view  of 
the  subject,  they  will  cease  to  regard  it  as  a  peculiar 

3X6 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY         "7 

the  manward  side,  it  is  a  con  r  .^^^^ 

pr<,duces  a  subjective  state^By^  he  B'b.^^^^^    ^^    ^ 

^:^irrdreS=----''^ 

Infinite.  _      ^u  *  j*^  ;«  pxoressed  in  tenns 

Failing  to  perceive  ^^  ''^^^f^^'pHiosophized 

of  experience,  men  ^a^' ''''"^.'T  Xtrine  and  con- 
over  it.  till  they  ha- ob-u  ed  tta  d«tn^.^^  ^^ 

M  *rtr  Sut  :^cu.atio„s  they  tavc 

"efudiceJ  ttVt^".  -  -^  rrVSVe 
vital  Christian  truth,  so  ttet  no  a  f^v,  ^ 

repelled  by  the  very  ™"';™  °  V5^,;°ha«  distorted 

'"  *''•'  !:'rsS  P  u      »*"isled  those  .ho 
the  meaning  of  the  bcnpt  ^^^  ^^^ 

have  studied  them,  for  •*  '^^''^  theologians 

Bible  does  not  ^f  J^t^be Concerned  about 
have  claimed.    We  neea  ^^  „„ 

ItdiSufwetu^^rt^-^ 

standing  it.  ,        jg^j  many  to 

Unfortunately,  too,  such  men  have 


2l8 


AT  ONEMENT 


St 


im' 


rj 


«     ! 


■  A  I  "i 


iH|,;l, 


#1 


III  r 


r  i  r 


suppose  that  they  were  not  in  harmony  with  evan- 
gelical doctrines,  when  the  theories  they  were 
asked  to  believe  were  not  in  ham\ony  with  evan- 
gelical conceptions.  That  result  has  come  from 
not  distinguishing  between  the  fact  and  the  phi- 
losophy of  atonement,  or  rather  from  not  observ- 
ing the  diflference  between  atonement  as  a  fact  and 
a  formal  explanation  of  it.  One  may  readily 
accept  the  fact,  but  reject  the  theory,  because  the 
one  is  a  matter  of  Scripture,  and  the  other  a  matter 
of  theology. 

Respecting  every  doctrine,  people  should  be 
taught  to  distinguish  between  the  facts  of  the  Bible 
and  the  theories  that  have  been  formed  to  explain 
them,  because  a  fact  is  one  thing,  but  a  theory  is 
another  and  a  different  thing.  It  is  historic  facts, 
not  philosophic  theories,  that  demand  consideration 
or  deserve  credence;  and  the  facts  pertaining  to 
each  vital  doctrine  may  be  tested  by  experience. 
The  following  sentence  from  a  recognized  authority 
is  worth  pondering,  as  well  as  reproducing :  "  The 
great  heresies  have,  in  almost  every  instance,  been 
theories,  which  either  contradicted  revealed  facts 
or  were  so  defective  in  their  recognition  of  the 
facts  as  to  fail  to  give  them  their  proper  value  or 
their  full  extent  of  truth."  * 

*  Quoted  from  a  communication  to  the  present  writer  from 
the  Rev.  Chancellor  Burwash,  S.T.D.,  LL.D.,  and  printed  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled  "A  Supplementary  Statement." 


i 


-I 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


219 


Since  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  so 
many  theories  have  been  advanced  that  most 
Christians  have  become  sadly  perplexed  in  regard 
to  the  doctrine.  At  all  events,  for  a  considerable 
period  very  many  have  not  known  either  how  to 
view  it  or  what  to  think  about  it.  Only  the  prin- 
cipal ones,  however,  need  to  be  examined.  The 
purpose  of  this  examination  is  to  show  approxi- 
mately when  each  one  arose,  to  state  concisely  what 
its  practical  object  was,  and  to  indicate  briefly  what 
it  was  supposed  to  contribute  towards  an  under- 
standing of  the  subject. 

Some  of  the  theories  are  unreasonable,  others 
of  them  are  unethical,  and  all  of  them  are  more 
or  less  unscriptural.  Moreover,  a  few  of  them  are 
so  mechanical  and  irrational  as  to  be  a  fruitful 
cause  of  scepticism,  and  have  driven  some  who  are 
repelled  by  them  into  positive  disbelief.  Each 
theory  expresses  the  thought  of  the  -ime  when  it 
was  made,  or  the  way  in  which  the  doctrine  was 
viewed  by  a  leading  thinker  of  that  day.  Each 
theory,  too,  contains  a  measure  of  truth;  but 
there  is  a  very  small  amount  in  some  of  them,  and 
one  has  to  look  quite  closely  to  find  what  little 

there  is. 

Ere  we  glance  at  the  various  phases  through 
which  the  thought  of  the  Church  has  passed  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that 
the  earliest  Christian  literature  on  the  subject  con- 


1 

;'» V 

«J  1  '.'^ 

» i  a     ! 

■'■■  ■   i , 


M> 


230  AT  ONEMENT 

tains  only  general  statements  concerning  reconcilia- 
tion to  God  through  Christ,  and  that  those 
statements  consist  principally  in  reproducing  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament.  For  a  good  while 
subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age,  there  was  no 
attempt  at  construct  ng  any  formal  theory  of  atone- 
ment. During  the  first  century  of  her  history,  at 
least,  the  teaching  of  the  Church  respecting  it  was 
simple  and  practical,  and  it  was  not  made  a  subject 
either  of  philosophical  speculation  or  of  contro- 
versial discussion. 

Those  who  immediately  succeeded  the  apostles 
viewed  atonement    rather  as   a    lact   than   as  a 
doctrine.     With  them,  as  with  the  disciples,  ^  the 
experimental  inter^^st  was  supreme.    With  the  disci- 
ples, also,  they  viewed  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  but  did  not  arbitrarily 
detach  the  death  from  the  life.    They  regarded  his 
death,  not  as  an  isolated  act,  but  as  the  natural 
consummation  of  a  life  of  self-devotion  to  the  will 
of  the  Father  for  the  sake  of  the  world.    Had  the 
later  theologians  been  as  wise  as  were  the  earlier 
ones,  the  results  would  have  been  very  different, 
and  the  Church  would  have  been  spared  a  vast 
amount  of  controversy. 

Speaking  generically,  one  might  say  that  there 
are  only  three  great  theories  by  which  theologians 
have  attempted  to  explain  the  facts  of  Scripture. 
These  are  the  Sacrificial,  the  Governmental,  and 


't- 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


221 


the  Moral  theory.  Though  there  are  many  other., 
rtey  may  all  be  group«l  or  dassified  under  some 
one  o"  ether  of  those  three.  But,  wh.le  they  are 
the  lading  or  generic  ones,  there  are  three  more 
Smo"  e,U  tell  kno«n.  So  altogether^'"" 
are  six  theories  to  be  examined,  namely,  the  Sacr^fi- 
cS  the  SatUfactional,  the  SubstUufonal  the 
Commercial,  the  Governmental,  and  the  Moral 

The  first  formal  explanation  is  the  sacr.fic.al 
theory.   Dwelling  on  the  figurative  language  apphed 
to^hrist  in  the  Scriptures,  and  tak.ng  such  term 
as   "ransom"  and  " propitiat.on "    I'terally,    the 
post-apostolic  Fathers  were  led  to  concove  of  h.m 
«  havtag  purchased  our  redemption  by  the  offermg 
"  WmseH  for  our  sin.    For  a  long  wh.le  men  d,^ 
puted  whether  the  ransom  price  was  pa.d  to  Satan 
or  to  God.    But,  as  God  could  not  both  g.ve  and 
receive  at  the  same  time,  it  was  generally  sup- 
^d  to  b.  paid  to  Satan  to  induce  h.m  to  release 
Tn    from   Ws    power.     This    explanaUon    was 
accepted  by  such  writers  as  Irensus  m  the  second 
rnwry  and  Origen  in  the  third  and  Augusfne  .n 
Z  fifth,  though  by  each  of  them  in  a  somewhat 

different  way.  ,..,.«  rhrUt  a«  a 

Irenaus  speaks  of  the  death  of  Chr.st  as  a 
ransom  and  a  sacrifice,  but  does  not  "-amta.n  tha 
the  ransom  offered  was  paid  to  Satan.    He  holds 
th»t  bv  vieldine  to  the  Adversary,  man  fell  under 
hu' way  but  is  freed  from  his  dominion  through 


i 


I)-t  i. 


222  'AT  ONEMENT 

union  with  the  great  mediator,  Jesus  Christ.  Re- 
garding him  as  the  representative  of  the  race,  he 
views  him  as  entering  into  man's  place,  and  as 
accomplishing  all  that  was  necessary  to  propitiate 
God  and  redeem  man  from  the  Tempter,  thus 
making  the  work  of  Christ,  especially  his  obedi- 
ence, the  ground  of  human  acceptance.  In  this 
view,  men  are  redeemed  or  saved  in  virtue  of  what 

Jesus  did.  ^ 

Like  Irenaeus,  Origen  taught  that  Christ  offered 
himself  as  a  sacrifice  to  God,  and  thereby  rendered 
him  propitious;  but  he  regarded  his  obedience  as 
a  relative,  not  an  indispensable,  necessity  in  gain- 
ing for  man  the  victory  over  his  Enemy.    Accord- 
ing to  him,  however,  Jesus  was  a  literal  ransom  paid 
to  the  Evil  One  to  liberate  men  from  his  control. 
He  argued  that  Satan  had  legitimate  authority  to 
keep  mankind  in  thraldom,  but  that  his  lawful  con- 
trol was  forfeited  by  the  surrender  to  him  of  Christ, 
who  could  not  long  be  holden  of  him,  by  reason 
of  his  sinlessness.     To  account  for  the  Tempter's 
acceptance  of  so  insecure  a  ransom,  Origen  con- 
ceived the  preposterous  notion  that  Satan,  being 
ignorant  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  was  misled  into 
believing  that,  if  he  were  once  given  to  him,  he 
would  remain  permanently  under  his  sway.    Thus, 
by  a  species  of  deception  supposed  to  be  practised 
on  him  by  the  Deity,  Satan  was  led  to  relinqu? '- 
his  dominion  over  men. 


\-    ■  i'   I 


u 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY  223 

On  the  subject  of  atonement  Augustine  employs 
the  prevalent  conception  .f  1    redemption   from 
Satanic  power,  but  in  a  ra  V.er  vaguer  form  ^ 
that  of  Origen.    He  regard.  n,:n  as  I'b-'^^ed    -m 
the  dominion  of  the  Adversary  b)'  m.:ans  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  whom  he  seems  to  view  as  a 
ransom  paid  to  Satan,  though  some  mterpret  h  s 
language  to  mean  that  the  ransom  was  merely 
exhibited,  and  not  offered,  to  him.    At  best,  how- 
ever, his  view  is  only  a  modified  Origenism. 

Absurd  and  unbiblical  as  it  is,  this  theory  was 
an  attempt  to  explain  the  sacrificial  Phraseology 
used  of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,  but  those 
who  constructed,  as  well  as  those  who  accepted,  it 
overlooked  the  metaphorical  character  of  the  terms 
employed,    and    interpreted    them    according    to 
heathen,  not  according  to  Hebrew,  usage       n  one 
form  or  another  this  belief  was  current  in  the 
Church  for  about  a  thousand  years^  In  one  forn 
or  another,  too,  myriads  of  people  believe  still  that 
men  belong  at  birth  to  Satan  and  must  be  rescued 
from  his  power,   instead  of   beheving  with  the 
evangelists  that  they  belong  naturally  to  God,  and 
nied  only  to  become  his  subjects  by  a  voluntary 

Jesus  was  a  ransom  in  a  figurative  but  not  ma 
lit  ral,  sense  of  the  term  He  was  f;°J-J^^^' 
in  the  sense  of  a  voluntary  self-offermg.  as 
Ephesians  5:2  teaches,  for  the  author  states  d.s- 


224 


AT  ONEMENT 


tinctly  that  he  gave  himself  to  God  on  our  behalf.^ 
So  his  offering  was  something  done  for  us  rather 
than  something  given  to  him,  though  anything 
given  to  him  or  a  sacred  purpose  may  be  Biblically 
called  a  sacrifice.  When  people  tell  us,  therefore, 
that  we  get  to  God  only  thnnigh  an  offering,  the 
statement  is  quite  true,  if  we  understand  by  it  a 
self-offering.  That  which  he  wants  of  each  of 
us  is  the  heart,  and  that  is  the  only  thing  which 
any  one  can  give.  As  all  the  fitness  he  requires  is 
to  feel  our  need  of  him,  to  adapt  the  language  of 
a  well-known  stanza,  so,  to  continue  in  a  similar 
strain,  all  the  offering  he  desires  is  to  give  our- 
selves to  him. 

The  second  formal  explanation  and  it  was  really 
the  first  systematic  one,  is  the  satis  factional  theory. 
This  was  propounded  in  the  eleventh  century  by 
Anselm  of  Canterbury,  who  modified  the  sacrificial 
theory  by  maintaining  that  the  ransom  given  by 
Christ  was  paid  not  to  Satan,  but  to  God.  Atha- 
nasius  had  suggested  a  similar  idea  in  the  fourth 
century,  but  Anselm  was  the  first  to  present  the 
view  consistently.  He  conceived  of  sin  as  nothing 
but  not  rendering  to  God  his  due.  Not  to  render 
him  his  due  honour  is  to  withdraw  from  him  what 

*The  Greek  word  for  oflfering  in  this  verse  signifies  an 
oblation,  or  a  bloodless  sacrifice,  and  the  term  is  used  in 
Romans  15:  16  of  the  Gentiles  saved  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  who  ar«  ther«  regarded  fti  a  gift  preicnttd  to  God* 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


225 


is  his,  and  that  is  to  commit  sin.  This  sin  must  be 
followed  either  by  satisfaction  or  by  punishment; 
for,  if  God  were  to  pronounce  pardon  without 
reparation,  it  would  violate  his  glory.  Thus  arises 
the  necessity  of  satisfaction  as  a  condition  of  for- 
giveness. 

But,  since  his  rights  must  be  restored  and  his 
honour  repaired,  and  since  unaided  man  was  in- 
competent to  do  either,  he  himself  had  to  do  both, 
or  procure  some  one  not  inferior  to  himself  who 
should  be  competent  to  make  the  necessary  satisfac- 
tion. In  other  words,  should  he  determine  to  release 
the  sinner,  he  must  provide  the  means.  This  he  did 
by  incarnating  himself  in  a  unique  being,  desig- 
nated the  God-man,  who  not  only  compensated 
for  human  guilt,  but  also  fulfilled  the  divine 
claims. 

Anselm  regarded  the  guilt  which  man  had  con- 
tracted as  infinite  because  he  had  sinned  against 
an  infinite  Being,  and  argued  that  the  enormity  of 
his  sin  required  an  infinite  satisfaction.  For  this 
reason  he  taught  that  with  infinite  compassion  God 
became  man  in  order  to  enable  humanity,  in  the 
person  of  his  Son,  to  satisfy  hirr.  for  its  sins.  Only 
a  divine  person  such  as  Christ  could  render  the 
requisite  satisfaction,  because  God  only  could  satisfy 
himself.  Such  is  the  Anselmic  doctrine  of  vicarious 
satisfaction;  and,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  this 
thtory  has  not  mtrely  obtained  a  very  wide  accept- 


i    : 


m, 


226  AT  ONEMENT 

ance,  but  is  still  considered  evangelical  by  a  large 
section  of  the  Christian  Church. 

There  are  some  elements  of  truth  in  this  theory, 
or  so  acute  an  intellect  as  that  of  Anselm  would 
not  have  constructed  it;  but,  though  an  improve- 
ment on  the  previous  explanations,  it  is  quite  unbibh- 
cal.    It  proceeds  on  the  analogy  of  civil  law,  and 
views  the  satisfaction  required  of  God  as  a  debt. 
To  say  that  God  rather  than  Satan  must  be  satisfied 
is  correct,  but  God  does  not  need  to  be  satisfied 
in  any  civil  or  legal  sense.     If  he  is  our  Father, 
we  must  proceed  not  on  the  analogy  of  civil  law, 
but  on  that  of  paternal  love.    A  true  father  is  satis- 
fied when  his  child  repents  and  returns  to  him,  and 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  God  is  satisfied  when  men 
repent  and  comply  with  the  conditions  of  forgive- 
ness. . 
Then,  while  withdrawing  from  him  what  is  his 
is  to  commit  sin,  that  is  only  the  negative  aspect  of 
sin.    In  its  positive  aspect  sin  is  the  conscious  trans- 
gression of  known  law,  so  that  it  does  not  consist 
simply  in  not  rendering  to  him  his  due.    Though 
sin  is  fundamentally  against  God,  in  that  it  is  a 
violation  of  his  law,  it  does  not  affect  his  honour, 
much  less  injure  it.    On  the  contrary,  it  is  prac- 
tically against  those  who  commit  it,  and  it  injures 
morally  only  those  who  do  wrong  consciously.    But, 
whether  sin  be  conscious  or  unconscious,  God  is 
satisfied  when  we  abandon  it  and  accept  Christ. 


1^ 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY  227 

Each  person,  however,  must  put  away  his  own  sin 
by  the  aid  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 

In  this  theory  the  death  of  Christ  is  viewed  as 
a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  honour  for  human  trans- 
gression. Such  a  price  was  considered  necessary 
to  make  the  forgiveness  of  man  possible  and  right. 
But,  apart  from  its  unscripturalness,  the  notion  is 
unreasonable;  for  nothing  any  one  might  do  for  a 
sinner  could  make  it  possible  for  God  to  forgive 
him  till  he  complies  with  the  terms  of  forgiveness, 
and  when  he  does  that,  it  is  right  that  he  should 
be  pardoned.  Besides,  if  the  divine  honour  had 
been  violated,  no  one  but  the  person  who  had  in- 
jured it  could  make  reparation,  for  moral  injuries 
can  be  repaired  only  by  those  responsible  for 
them. 

The  third  formal  explanation  may  be  called  the 
substitutional  theory.  The  Reformers  modified 
Anselm's  theory  by  introducing  the  analogies  of 
criminal  law.  In  their  view  the  satisfaction  re- 
quired of  God  consists  in  punishment.  They  held 
that  men  were  under  obligation  to  bear  the  punish- 
ment which  sin  deserved,  but  that  Jesus  took  their 
place  for  the  purpose  of  expiating  sin,  and  endured 
the  punishment  of  it  in  their  stead.  For  instance, 
Robert  South  preached  that  "Christ  substituted 
his  own  body  in  our  room,  to  receive  the  whole 
stroke  of  that  dreadful  retribution  inflicted  by  the 
hand  of  an  angry  omnipotence";  and  John  Calvin 


Up. 


^r 


[if 


Hi''- 


I'- 


; 


I    " 


228 


AT  ONEMENT 


i  ,!■;  ■"     "! 


wrote  that  "  Christ  took  upon  himself  and  suffered 
the  punishment  which,  by  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God,  impended  over  all  sinners,  and  by  this 
expiation  the  Father  has  been  satisfied  and  his 
wrath  appeased."  *  According  to  this  theory  Christ 
became  a  literal  substitute  for  sinners,  who,  but  for 
his  interposition,  would  have  been  consigned  to 
endless  perdition. 

This  theory,  also,  contains  a  measure  of  truth, 
though  the  amount  in  it  is  very  small.    The  idea 
of  substitution  is  a  Scriptural  one,  but  not  in  refer- 
ence to  anything  that  Jesus  did.    In  Genesis  22 :  13 
Abraham  is  said  to  have  taken  a  ram  and  to  have 
sacrificed  him  "  in  the  stead  of  his  son  ";  but  the 
Biblical  writers  knew  that,  while  substitution  is 
possible  in  material  things,  it  is  impossible  in  moral 
matters.     One  may  suffer  and  die  in  the  stead  of 
another  physically,  but  one  can  neither  suffer  nor 
die  in  the  place  of  another  morally,  because  neither 
sin  nor  guilt  nor  moral  penalty  can  be  transferred. 
Sin  must  be  expiated,  of  course,  but  every  man  must 
expiate  his  own  offence,  so  far  as  its  moral  aspect 
is  concerned.    There  is  no  such  thing  as  substitu- 
tionary moral  suffering  or  substitutionary  morai 
punishment,  and  the  New  Testament  does  not  sug- 
gest that  Christ  was  a  vicarious  punishment.     It 
simply  represents  our  Lord  as,  in  loving  obedience 
to  the  will  of  the  Father,  effecting  the  reconciliation 
»"  Institutes,"  Bk.  II.,  chapter  16,  pars.  3,  4. 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


229 


of  man  to  God.    Only  the  consequences  of  our  sin 
could  touch  his  righteous  soul. 

Notwithstanding  its  unscripturalness,  very  many 
continue  to  teach  that  jesus  offered  himself  as  a 
sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice.  But  to  suggest 
that  anything  must  be  done  to  satisfy  divine  justice 
in  order  that  divine  love  may  operate,  is  to  array 
one  attribute  of  God  against  another.  His  love 
is  as  much  from  everlasting  as  his  justice  is.  Hence 
to  assume  that  something  was  needed  to  satisfy  his 
justice  is  to  assume  that  something  was  antecedent 
to  his  love,  which  is  utterly  inconceivable.  Since 
he  is  a  perfect  Being,  his  love  and  his  justice  are 
the  same  thing,  because  they  are  both  dispensed 
with  absolute  righteousness.  Everything  the  Deity 
does  is  the  manifestation  or  expression  of  benevo- 
lence; and,  as  redemption  is  the  outcome  of  benevo- 
lence, the  attribute  of  mercy,  which  prompts  him 
to  pardon,  must  precede  atonement. 

A  fourth  formal  explanation  may  be  calle  ■  the 
commercial  theory.  The  foregoing  theories  are 
all  commercial  in  a  sense,  because  they  all  regard 
atonement  as  the  payment  of  a  debt;  but  among 
later  writers  the  payment  is  expressed  in  a  much 
grosser  form.  Some  of  them,  for  example,  main- 
tain that  in  order  to  afford  a  perfect  satisfaction, 
Christ  experienced  the  wrath  of  God,  the  curse  of 
the  law,  and  the  pangs  of  hell;  and  one  of  them, 
Quenstedt,  declares  that  "  Christ  was  substituted 


I 


5 

I 


230 


AT  ONEMENT 


fir  1 


S 


tHc  -■  •  Sit 


i    ^i 


in  the  place  of  the  debtors  "  and  that  "  in  his  satis- 
faction he  sustained  all  that  the  rigour  of  God's 
justice  demanded,  so  much  so  that  he  felt  even  the 
very  pains  of  hell,  although  not  in  hell  or  eter- 
nally." ^  Such  hymns  as  "  Jesus  paid  it  all,  all  the 
debt  I  owe,"  and  "  Free  from  the  law,  O  happy  con-  ^ 
dition,"  will  illustrate  the  commercial  aspects  of  this 
theory. 

There  is  nothing  whatever  to  be  said  in  favour 
of  such  a  view.  It  is  unscriptural  and  repellent.  It 
is  unethical,  also,  because  it  makes  the  sacrifice  that 
Jesus  offered  a  mere  commercial  transaction,  or  a 
mere  mercantile  negotiation.  If  Christ  did  all  that 
the  Father  required,  there  is  no  room  for  forgive- 
ness. A  debtor  may  fairly  demand  release  when 
his  debt  is  paid.  If  Christ  has  paid  man's  debt, 
then  man  has  nothing  to  do  but  believe  that  his 
obligation  has  been  cancelled.  Such  teaching  leads 
to  antinomianism,  or  the  doctrine  that  faith  frees 
the  Christian  from  the  claims  of  the  moral  law. 
But  is  Jesus  not  called  a  surety  in  the  Scriptures? 
Yes ;  in  Hebrews  7 :  22  he  is  so  designated,  but  the 
passage  has  no  reference  to  atonement.  He  is  there 
styled  a  surety,  not  as  being  a  substitute  to  take 
our  place,  nor  yet  as  being  a  bondsman  to  pay  our 
debt,  but  as  being  the  pledge  of  a  superior  covenant. 
The  sole  object  of  the  author  is  to  show  the  supe- 
riority of  the  Christian  dispensation.  Physical  and 
*  Thcologia  Didactico-polemica,  I,,  39. 


*mi 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


231 


*  *^ 


finaiicial  liabilities  may  be  assumed  by  one  person 
for  another,  but  moral  liabilities  cannot  be.  No  one 
can  pay  a  moral  debt,  or  meet  a  moral  obligation, 
but  the  party  that  incurs  it.  In  morals  each  man 
must  meet  his  own  obligation  and  pay  his  own  debt. 
The  mortgage  which  our  past  sins  have  upon  us 
can  be  lifted  only  by  ourselves. 

A  fifth  form  of  explanation  is  known  as  the  gov- 
ernmental theory,  and  was  constructed  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  by  Grotius,  a  great  Dutch  jurist.  As 
the  theories  just  examined  seemed  to  leave  no  room 
for  forgiveness,  he  maintained  that  Christ  was  not 
actually  punished  for  the  sins  of  men,  but  merely 
endured  suffering  which  God,  as  a  merciful  ruler, 
could  accept  in  the  place  of  punishment.  Instead 
of  regarding  his  death  as  necessary  to  satisfy  divine 
justice,  he  regards  the  satisfaction  afforded  by  it 
as  a  free  and  gracious  arrangement,  adapted  to  dis- 
play the  righteousness  of  God  and  vindicate  the 
dignity  of  his  administration.  In  this  view  the 
voluntary  suflferings  of  Christ  were  designed  to  meet 
the  demands  of  justice  as  a  sort  of  punitive  example, 
and  impress  men  with  such  respect  for  law  and 
authority  as  to  render  forgiveness  safe.  On  the 
exercise  of  faith  in  what  Jesus  suffered,  they  are 
delivered  from  punishment  by  divine  grace. 

This  theory  eliminates  the  notion  of  penal  substi- 
tution, or  vicarious  satisfaction;  but,  though  with 
certain  modifications  it  has  been  widely  accepted. 


232 


AT  ONEMENT 


it  is  just  as  unscriptural  as  each  of  the  others.  With 
a  singular  conception  of  Deity,  it  supposes  the 
claims  of  divine  justice  to  be  so  relaxed  that,  on 
condition  of  our   faith,  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
become  a  quasi-substitute  for  penalty,  and  God,  as 
an  act  of  equity,  accepts  his  death  in  the  place  of 
ours.    By  so  exhibiting  his  clemency  and  his  hatred 
of  sin,  he  shows  us  the  seriousness  of  disobedience 
and  presents  us  with  a  powerful  motive  to  deter 
us  from  it.    Thus  the  theory  of  Grotius  regards 
God  as  a  regent  rather  than  a  parent,  and  man  as 
a  culprit  rather  than  a  child.    Moreover,  it  makes 
the  passion  of  Christ  a  prudential  expedient  for  the 
maintenance  of  a  righieous  order,  because  it  views 
his  death  more  as  a  measure  of  government  than 
as  a  manifestation  of  love.    A  true  father  does  not 
ask  if  it  is  safe  to  forgive  his  child,  nor  does  he 
desire  anything  to  meet  the  demands  of  his  law. 
Those  demands  are  met  when  the  conditions  of 
forgiveness  are  fulfilled. 

A  sixth  form  of  explanation  may  be  styled  the 
moral  theory.  From  the  time  of  Abelard,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  pro- 
test against  the  crudities  of  the  ancient  systems  of 
doctrine.  That  scholastic  theologian  viewed  the 
passion  of  Christ  as  a  demonstration  of  love,  which 
awakens  such  a  response  in  us  as  to  liberate  us  from 
the  bondage  of  sin  and  deliver  us  into  the  favour 
of  God.    His  view  led  gradually  to  the  construction 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY  233 

of  the  theory  of  Moral  Influence.     According  to 
this  theory  the  death  of  Christ  was  not  intended 
to  remove  obstacles  to  forgiveness  on  the  side  of 
God,  because  on  his  side  there  were  no  obstacles 
to  be  removed,  but  was  designed  to  have  an  atoning 
eflfect  in  bringing  sinners  to  repentance  and  iri  turn- 
ing them  to  righteousness.     His  work  consists  in 
influencing  men  to  lead  better  lives,  or,  as  Bushnell, 
its  greatest  representative  on  this  continent,  has  said, 
"  Christ  is  shown  to  be  a  Saviour,  not  as  being  a 
ground  of  justification,  but  as  being  the  moral  power 
of  God  upon  us,  (and)  so  a  power  of  salvation."  * 
Resting,  as  it  does,  on  the  vicariousness  of  love, 
this  view  is  Scriptural,  so  far  as  it  goes;  but  it  falls 
much  below  that  of  the  New  Testament.    There  is 
a  mighty  moral  power  in  the  death  of   Christ. 
Romans  5 :  10  regards  his  death  as  exerting  an  aton- 
ing influence  on  men;  but  his  death  was  only  a  part 
of  his  work,  and  it  forms  only  one  element  in  atone- 
ment.   And  the  author  of  that  epistle  asserts  that, 
while  sinners  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
of  his  Son,  they  are  saved  from  sin  and  condemna- 
tion by  his  life,  that  is,  by  virtue  of  his  life  in  them. 
In  agreement  with  this  assertion,  I.  John  5 :  20  says, 
"This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life,"  which 
means  that  God,  as  manifested  and  known  through 
Jesus  Christ,  is  eternal  life.    It  is  as  the  mediator 
of  eternal  life  that  Christ  is  viewed  by  the  apostles; 
*"The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,"  p.  449- 


^"^%^ 


234 


AT  ONEMENT 


•I; 


and,  because  this  theory  represents  his  work  simply 
as  a  display  of  divine  love  in  order  to  induce  men 
to  repent,  it  is  deficient  in  that  respect.  Atonement 
is  owing  to  a  right  moral  relationship,  and  not  to 
anything  mechanical,  nor  yet  to  a  mere  moral  influ- 
ence. 

It  is  only  fair  to  add,  however,  that  the  moral 
theory  is  found  in  many  different  forms,  and  that 
its  later  advocates  do  not  confine  the  influence  of 
Jesus  chiefly  to  his  death.  Neither  do  they  attach 
any  particular  importance  to  it,  apart  from  his  life, 
because  they  consider  the  life  and  the  death  unity. 
Their  fundamental  principle  is  to  interpret  the  work 
of  Christ  in  terms  of  right  personal  relations  with 
God.  The  aim  of  his  mission,  they  hold,  was  not 
to  pay  a  debt  nor  be  a  substitute,  not  to  satisfy  a 
claim  nor  secure  an  indemnity,  but  to  keep  men 
from  sinning  and  save  them  from  condemnation 
through  a  proper  spiritual  attitude  towards  God. 

In  some  of  its  better  forms,  this  theory  approaches 
closely  to  the  view  of  the  apostles;  but  no  view  of 
atonement  is  wholly  Scriptural  which  stops  short 
of  teaching  that  rnen  are  reconciled  to  God  through 
their  oneness  with  him  in  Christ  as  the  mediator  of 
eternal  life.  As  was  stated  elsewhere  in  other 
words,  reconciliation  is  not  merely  a  change  effected 
in  the  disposition  of  man  towards  God,  but  a  change 
in  man's  relation  to  him.  It  is  a  change  produced 
by  the  Divine  Spirit  from  a  wrong  to  a  right  rela- 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


235 


tion;  that  is,  from  rebellion  to  allegiance,  from  en- 
mity to  friendship,  from  separation  to  union,  from 
alienation  to  love. 

Such  is  the  nature  and  such  are  the  fallacies  of 
atonement  in  theory.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
each  leading  theory  had  some  relation  to  the  social 
ideas  dominant  at  the  time  of  its  construction.  We 
may,  if  we  will,  suppose  that  the  Ransom  theory 
was  agreeable  to  modes  of  thought  prevailing  in 
an  age  of  brigandage,  that  the  Satisfaction  theory 
had  strong  support  in  mediaeval  notions  of  authority, 
that  the  Government  theory  may  be  traced  to  the 
prominence  given  in  the  days  of  Grotius  to  inter- 
national law,  and  that  the  Moral  Influence  theory 
was  prompted  by  more  humanitarian  conceptions. 
The  suggestion  has  very  little  value,  however, 
though  there  is  probably  some  ground  for  it.  At 
all  events,  the  ancient  the^  ies  have  been  materially 
modified  in  recent  years  Ly  a  gradual  emphasizing 
of  the  human  factor  in  the  process  of  redemption; 
and  men  are  coming  more  and  more  to  see  that, 
according  to  New  Testament  teaching,  it  is  only 
as  we  accept  Christ  by  uniting  ourselves  to  him 
that  his  work  has  any  saving  efficacy  for  us. 

The  explanation  given  of  the  various  terms  that 
are  used  of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament  should 
enable  the  reader  to  appreciate  their  proper  force 
wherever  they  occur.  Those  who  did  not  understand 
their  Scriptural  import  have  sometimes  been  repelled 


236 


AT  ONEMENT 


l\ 


by  them,  especially  as  some  hymn-writers  have 
employed  them;  but,  when  due  allowance  is  made 
for  their  figurative  character,  they  have  each  a 
practical  significance.  As  applied  to  Jesus,  the 
word  "ransom"  represents  his  service  for  us;  the 
word  "  cross,"  his  love  to  us  and  for  us;  the  word 
"  blood,"  his  love  to  us  and  his  life  in  us.  Each 
term  expresses  his  spirit  towards  us,  and  the  spirit 
we  should  have  towards  one  another. 

Before  this  chapter  is  concluded,  it  seems  expedi- 
ent to  repeat  that  atonement  in  itself  is  both  object- 
ive and  subjective — objective  in  God  and  subject- 
ive in  man;  that  atonement  in  God  is  initiative, 
atonement  in  Christ  mediative,  atonement  in  man 
experimentative,  atonement  in  sacrifice  figurative, 
atonement  in  death  consecrative,  atonement  in  suf- 
fering participative,  atonement  in  service  ministra- 
tive,  and  atonement  in  theory  speculative. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  present  writer,  all  theoriz- 
ing about  the  doctrine  should  be  discouraged,  if  not 
condemned;  for  most  theories  either  put  God  out- 
side the  process  of  atonement  or  bring  him  into 
it  mechanically,  whereas  he  originated  it  and  was 
always  connected  with  it.  He  is  the  beginning, 
the  middle,  and  the  end  of  the  whole  work,  because 
in  reality  his  love  is  our  atonement. 

A  theory  is  merely  a  lame  attempt  to  set  forth 
in  a  speculative  form  what  is  plainly  and  practically 
cxpresied  in  the  Scriptures.    Had  the  teaching  of 


ATONEMENT  IN  THEORY 


237 


the  prophets  and  apostles  been  regarded  and  appreci- 
ated, no  unscriptural  theory  would  ever  have  been 
constructed  to  rest  like  an  incubus  on  the  minds  of 
modern  men.  Wc  do  not  need  a  theory  to  put  our- 
selves right  with  our  heavenly  Father  any  more 
than  we  need  one  to  put  ourselves  right  with  our 
fellow-men. 

Getting  right  with  God  is  a  matter,  not  of  theory, 
but  of  fact.  It  is  something  gained  by  effort  and 
proved  by  experience.  That  is  the  way  in  which 
the  New  Testament  writers  present  the  doctrine. 
And,  though  their  presentation  may  be  called  a 
view,  it  cannot  fairly  be  called  a  theory,  because  it 
involves  neither  inference  nor  conjecture,  but  is 
verifiable  by  practice.  In  a  true  sense,  therefore, 
one  may  say  that  all  theories  of  atonement  are  inade- 
quate to  explain  what  it  means. 

Atonement  is  walking  in  light  and  working  in 
love  with  our  Maker;  it  is  dealing  with  equity  and 
dwelling  in  peace  with  mankind.  So  it  is  concerned 
with  life,  and  is  intended  for  life.  As  viewed  by 
the  apostles,  it  is  a  life — a  divinely  quickened  life, 
or  a  life  quickened  into  spiritual  activity  by  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  human  heart. 
Till  that  experience  is  gained,  no  theory,  or  com- 
bination of  theories,  will  make  clear  what  it  is; 
and,  with  that  experience,  all  thought  of  theorizing 
over  the  doctrine  will  cease. 


